Verified answer

Constantine the Great split the Roman Empire into two, the Western ruled from Rome and the Eastern rules from Constantinople/Byzantium. The Western Empire fell in the 6th century, the Eastern lasted (getting smaller and smaller as time went on) for another 900 years. So yes, the Byzantines regarded themselves as Roman, although they were more Greek in outlook - the language was Greek for example which can be seen in many of the names of the Emperors.

The Western Empire fell; the Eastern did not. Historians call them Byzantines to indicate the Greek-speaking Empire. The people of the Eastern Empire always referred to themselves as Romans.

They were subjects of the Roman Empire of the East, therefore they were legitimately "Roman". After the fall of Rome itself, only Byzantium could carry out the traditions of the Empire, and rule the "Roman" way.

Yes, they weren't even a successor state to the Roman Empire, they were a direct continuation of it. Whilst they did abandon most of their Roman traditions by the eleventh century, it was still considered to Rome, regardless of they whether they actually controlled the city.

That was part of the Roman Empire. Many of the people and all of the leaders were CITIZENS OF ROME, so, yes, when they became the "Western Roman Empire, they were Romans.

Rome wasn't simply a "city state", it was an empire that encompassed many people.

The whole idea is preposterous.What a Byzantine claim. Who were the Romans anyway? nobody knows. It's all Greek.

The Western Empire fell; the eastern did no longer. Historians call them Byzantines to show the Greek-conversing Empire. the human beings of the eastern Empire continuously spoke of themselves as Romans.

Well, Mitt Romney seems to think that Americans are British, so I suppose that the Byz were Romans in the same sense as that.

On the other hand, no Byz emperor every strapped a dog to the top of his chariot when he went for a vacation in Canada.