Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Between the two, I don't know which one can claim superiority over the other but they both can claim superiority over my ethnic heritage. My family is pretty much all Anglo Saxon. The Hungarians, when they were working with Attila ran over my ancestors like a steamroller. The French put up a better fight against the Nazis than my ethnic kin did against the Hungarians. It is my understanding, that many Roman soldiers retired to Romania (it was called Dacia then) and then their descendents intermarried with Slavs who arrived later. So today’s Romanians are mainly a Slavic, Roman solider mix. The Roman army kicked the Angles and Saxons around Europe like a soccer ball for hundreds of years (enslaving many of them while they were at it) and the Slavs kicked the Angles and Saxons out of Bohemia and Poland without breaking a sweat (which inspired many to run off with their tails between their legs to a cold and rainy island off the coast of France so they could be kicked around by the Vikings a few centuries later ).
|
Attila the Hun wasn't Hungarian. Hungarians are of central asian descent. They are not slavic.
No google or wiki - I think I'm right, but not positive.
ETA: I've checked wiki. Huns were not Hungarians, who were/are Magyars.
