Adding to that, I suppose, would be the question of just who the Roman people were. For my purposes I suppose I mean the ruling classes, the ethnic group that comprised the senators, aristocrats and (I believe) most anyone who had the privilege to vote.
Are the modern day Italians the same people, down to their genetic code? Did a diaspora effectively dilute them across Europe? It just seems strange the me that unlike Greeks who still exist and identify today (Though I understand modern Greeks are quite different from ancient ones) no one exactly thinks of themselves as 'Roman' today.
hi! you can find some previous discussions on this in the FAQ*
Transition from Roman identity to Italian identity
*see the link on the sidebar or the wiki tab
They're Italians. Although by now the numerous invasions and immigrations have changed a lot and the original "Roman" genes are wildly different than those of modern Italians.
Most of the inhabitants of the city of Rome think of themselves as "Romans" today. Those who live in Venice think of themselves as Venetians, those who live in Naples as Neapolitans etc.
If you ask someone who lives in Rome (particularly if his family has lived there for generations what he thinks of himself (or herself) as, it is likely to be "Roman".
Interesting question and I've clicked through the links /u/searockandtrees gave and I've seen some....interesting responses. Notably the focus on Italy despite it having been increasingly barbarised in the preceding centuries. It says lot about our common assumptions.
Rome was a huge place. No, really, it is hard to imagine an ancient empire from Britain all the way to Mesopotamia, and how diverse and populous this was, especially the East.
What happened to the Romans? Well when the barbarians took Rome you have to realise Rome as a city didn't have too much more beyond a symbolic importance. Both Mediolanum and Ravenna had served as administrative capitals and when the Romans would re-take the peninsula it was Ravenna which would serve again.
Despite the fall of the West there continued to be a citizen body of Romans in the East, what we anachronistically call Byzantium. Yes, citizens not serfs under a baronial system, following Roman law and living in Roman administration centres and what not. Though the middle ages turned fractious due to Western invasions this state generally lasted until 1453. Due to a quick of demography Greek had always been the most widely spoken language in the Empire (the East being more urbanised) and it would indeed be the longest lasting one. Greek long, long, ago lost its "ethnic" connotations, serving first as a generic common tongue ("Koine") and later as the tongue for identifying Roman citizens ("Rhomeika", literally Roman speech). This would be the case, post political collapse and Ottoman occupation, until the modern period when Greek politicians influenced by the literati abroad decided to try and resuscitate an ancient Greek identity. But this is a completely different story.
Ok, as for Italy itself, unlike the East where there was phenomenal long term continuation Italy was changing rapidly. Indeed, had been doing so even under the Roman system due to increasing barbarian influence. Actually regarding Italy I'd just like to link a post I just read on Reddit. I'm relatively new to the site and will probably mess up but ok:
Its a good example of the changing vernacular and laity and includes an interesting citation or two.
Also, while this is an interesting question its one that is rarely welcomed outside of academia. It pays to be aware of some of the more relevant literature (let's say Wickham's "The heritage of Rome") but investigating identity and traditions always seems to step on peoples toes so you might want to pick up books like Hobswans "The Invention of Tradition" to get a view of how modern nationalism shapes our history and so on.
I hope that's coherent, I guess I don't usually like writing long posts for this very reason. Forgive the waffling and spelling errors.