> and had never afaik been considered less roman for it.
That's quite debatable, as those parts (Western Anatolia, present-day Syria, the old Orient as a whole) had always been more advanced from a "civilisational" point of view (compared to Rome, that is), and hence them viewing themselves as Romans first and foremost would have been a "spiritual" demotion.
I didn't say they viewed themselves "first and foremost" as romans, where are you getting that?
I'm pointing out that their using greek didn't count against what they & others considered to be their "romanness" before the western empire fell, so why are you looking at it that way now?
To be honest I'm not really certain what you're trying to claim though so maybe the distinction is useful for your point. But anyway "to what extent & by whose measure were the eastern romans, and later the byzantines, roman" is one of the most active & scrutinized questions of one of the most visible and prestigious branches of historical scholarship.
And the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that they were roman by any standard that applied in their time and most that we can come up with as well. "They spoke greek and weren't roman because of that" hasn't been a serious reputable stance on the subject for a few generations now.
That's quite debatable, as those parts (Western Anatolia, present-day Syria, the old Orient as a whole) had always been more advanced from a "civilisational" point of view (compared to Rome, that is), and hence them viewing themselves as Romans first and foremost would have been a "spiritual" demotion.