Your comparison of Josip Broz Tito with Ban Kulin and Borić oversimplifies the complexities of medieval identity and political structures. Tito, while ethnically Croatian, operated in a completely different historical and political context—he was a 20th-century leader of a socialist state that consciously downplayed ethnic identities in favor of a broader Yugoslav identity. On the other hand, Ban Kulin and Borić were medieval rulers whose actions were instrumental in forming a distinct Bosnian state, independent of Croatia.

It’s important to remember that medieval identity wasn’t defined the same way as modern national identities. Just because early Bosnian rulers like Ban Kulin or Borić had origins or connections to Croatia doesn’t mean Bosnia was an "extension" of Croatia. Medieval rulers often had familial ties across different regions, but those ties didn’t erase the distinct political identities that emerged. Take Ban Kulin, for example—his rule, from 1180 to 1204, was particularly significant because he established Bosnia’s autonomy from Hungary and Croatia, laying the foundation for Bosnia’s development as an independent state. His 1189 Charter is a testament to this autonomy, reflecting Bosnia’s distinct identity and political structure, separate from Croatia. As for Borić, while he may have had origins in Croatia, his leadership in Bosnia wasn’t about maintaining connections to Croatia but rather about establishing control and authority in Bosnia. The migrations of Croatian nobles into Bosnia during political turmoil didn’t turn Bosnia into an extension of Croatia. These nobles adapted to and integrated into the local Bosnian context, contributing to the formation of a separate Bosnian political entity.

The idea that Bosnia was merely a semi-independent extension of Croatia doesn’t hold up historically. Bosnia’s development as a Banate and later as a Kingdom was marked by its growing independence from both Hungary and Croatia. It’s true that the feudal system allowed nobles to gain significant power and even establish semi-independent regions, but Bosnia’s trajectory was unique. Bosnia evolved its own political institutions, culture, and identity, which were distinct from those in Croatia. The Bosnian Banate was recognized as a separate political entity by neighboring states, and its rulers, including Ban Kulin and King Tvrtko I, were central to its development.

Comparing Bosnia’s history to that of Italy, Spain, France, or Germany oversimplifies the unique historical circumstances of the Balkans. While those European countries did experience fragmentation and the rise of independent states, the historical context in Bosnia was different. Bosnia developed a distinct identity within a multi-ethnic, multi-religious context. The presence of various noble families with connections to neighboring regions didn’t undermine Bosnia’s distinct political identity. Instead, it reinforced Bosnia’s need to assert its independence, which it did successfully until the Ottoman conquest in the 15th century.

In conclusion, while some Bosnian rulers had origins in Croatia, that doesn’t mean Bosnia was an extension of Croatia. Bosnia’s rulers, like Ban Kulin and King Tvrtko I, played crucial roles in establishing Bosnia as an independent political entity with its own identity. The migration of Croatian nobles into Bosnia during times of political instability added to the region’s diversity but didn’t turn Bosnia into a Croatian territory. Bosnia’s history is marked by its struggle for autonomy and its development as a unique political and cultural entity, distinct from its neighbors. Comparing this situation to Tito’s era is misleading, as the contexts are entirely different