Changes

From a Greco-Roman perspective they were all identified as Slavs. Most probably based on linguistic-language classification. The Slavs found themselves living in a '''medieval multi-ethnic''' region:  Roman Latin-Illyrian population as well as Liburnians, Greeks, Guduscani <ref>[http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/guduscani self.gutenberg.org:] ''"It has been assumed, that they were part of the Vandals, Goths or Lombards."'' </ref>, Ostrogoths and others. It has been mention that there were other ethnic groups within the Slavic tribes themselves. This could explain the Persian (Sarmatian) connection.   

From a Greco-Roman perspective they were all identified as Slavs. Most probably based on linguistic-language classification. The Slavs found themselves living in a '''medieval multi-ethnic''' region:  Roman Latin-Illyrian population as well as Liburnians, Greeks, Guduscani <ref>[http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/guduscani self.gutenberg.org:] ''"It has been assumed, that they were part of the Vandals, Goths or Lombards."'' </ref>, Ostrogoths and others. It has been mention that there were other ethnic groups within the Slavic tribes themselves. This could explain the Persian (Sarmatian) connection.   

It was the most powerful chieftains (the main political players) who left a '''mark''' on history. Taking this into account, over a period of time in the middle ages we have new '''political identities''' of Southern Slavs emerging (regionally based or names brought with them). Among these were Croatians, Narentines, Bulgarians<ref>Bulgarians also have a strong historic association with Turkic semi-nomadic tribes. It has been written that in early medieval times the Bulgar elite spoke a language that was a member of the Turkic language group. </ref>, Bosnians, Serbs (Raška) etc.  

It was the most powerful chieftains (the main political players) who left a '''mark''' on history. Taking this into account, over a period of time in the middle ages we have new '''political identities''' of Southern Slavs emerging (regionally based ''or'' names brought with them). Among these were Croatians, Narentines, Bulgarians<ref>Bulgarians also have a strong historic association with Turkic semi-nomadic tribes. It has been written that in early medieval times the Bulgar elite spoke a language that was a member of the Turkic language group. </ref>, Bosnians, Serbs (Raška) etc.  

It is true that some of the origins of some of these words denoting southern slavic groups (i.e. Harvat, Horvat) can be traced further back in history. Some have wrongly associated the etymology of these words to proclaim ethnicities or national identities back deep into the past. To my understanding there is no real hard historic proof that these ethnic identities existed (i.e. Harvat, Horvat).  

It is true that some of the origins of some of these words denoting southern slavic groups (i.e. Harvat, Horvat) can be traced further back in history. Some have wrongly associated the etymology of these words to proclaim ethnicities or national identities back deep into the past. To my understanding there is no real hard historic proof that these ethnic identities existed (i.e. Harvat, Horvat).