>The most similar is definitely Italian
Funny how even though I'm fluent in Latin and can understand a third of spoken Spanish (having never studied Spanish), I can barely understand 10% of Italian regardless of the accent I'm listening to or which city the speaker is from. It's also funny that several other fluent Latin speakers (and some professors) I've talked to agree about this.
>Also, you're referring to "cives romani" and obviously a person that didn't live in the city of Rome wasn't a roman.
No, not obviously. Romans thought of themselves as a separate ethnicity with a distinct language, culture, and religion from Italians. They are descended from a distinct tribe that settled the city. A Roman family who had lived in Gaul for generations would still be called Roman. An Italian family who had lived in Roma would still be called Italians and cives Romani. Romans settled throughout their conquered territory, which included Italy, Hispania, Britannia, and Gaul. Like it or not, those regions have as much demonstrable Roman blood as modern day Italians whom are mostly descended from Italic tribes, not from Romans.
>it's not my job to educate you
Thank heavens my education of the Latin language and Roman history doesn't depend on you.