Changes

'''Duke Branimir''' from the 880s, spoke old Slavic Chakavian and was from the Dalmatian hinterland. Mr Branimir is, I believe the first Croatian ''or'' the first Southern Slav to describe himself as a Croatian (recorded as such and based on the current records that we have). In my opinion his tribe, who were the old Slavic Chakavian speakers, are the first Croatians (the ''Harvat tribe'', modern: Hrvati <ref>It is believed that Hrvat in medieval times was pronounced "'''Harvat or Hrovat'''". It was translated to Latin: Chroatorum and then simplified to Croatorum.</ref>). We can safely assume that Branimir's tribe goes back a few generations, especially since they had their own language i.e. Old Chakavian Croatian.  

'''Duke Branimir''' from the 880s, spoke old Slavic Chakavian and was from the Dalmatian hinterland. Mr Branimir is, I believe the first Croatian ''or'' the first Southern Slav to describe himself as a Croatian (recorded as such and based on the current records that we have). In my opinion his tribe, who were the old Slavic Chakavian speakers, are the first Croatians (the ''Harvat tribe'', modern: Hrvati <ref>It is believed that Hrvat in medieval times was pronounced "'''Harvat or Hrovat'''". It was translated to Latin: Chroatorum and then simplified to Croatorum.</ref>). We can safely assume that Branimir's tribe goes back a few generations, especially since they had their own language i.e. Old Chakavian Croatian.  

The early medieval Western Balkans must have had multiple small Slavic ethnic tribes. In some cases the newly arrived Slavs lived amongst the population that was there prior to their arrival. It is my opinion that for whatever reason it appears that their history has not been recorded accurately ''or'' not recorded at all (it become a frontier country, 'borderland').  

The early medieval Western Balkans must have had multiple small Slavic ethnic tribes. In some cases the newly arrived Slavs lived amongst the population that was there prior to their arrival. It is my opinion that for whatever reason it appears that their history has not been recorded accurately ''or'' not recorded at all (it evolved into frontier country, 'borderland').  

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.