> Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those

> Romans (as in the etymology Roman Empire) originally referred to a specific cultural and ethnic group - italic, latin speaking people in Rome and Italy. Those were the only people that called themselves that at the time. It's my understanding that this was vaguely true for the brief period between the social wars and the integration of Cisalpine gaul in 42 BC. So like, 40 years. I'm not sure if it's valid then, even, because at that point the italic peoples considered themselves culturally and ethnically distinct. To be honest, I think the whole idea of Rome as an ethnic nation-state at any point in its history is just anachronism (except, maybe, in the later byzantine era?). The path to 'everybody is a citizen', in 212 AD, is basically an extension of the social wars - a set of conflicts about who gets what rights, with no real geographical or ethnic criterion applied throughout, except for basically administrative reasons. > Yes. But continuation of state does not necessarily coincide with continuation of the culture the established that state. I think any reasonable definition of culture allows change. The fact is, Rome was a Hellenistic state from its very beginning - they considered themselves the descendants of a Trojan prince. There was no point in Roman history where they didn't take their cues from greek culture.