Atilla vs Magyars

[Vlad]

An interesting topic reply to one of our site moderators:

"From:
Vlad
To:
Shish-kabob-Forrest
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:12 am
Subject:
Re: Nandorfehervar/Belgrade explained

Hmmm....BELGRADE - Now that you mentioned it....I do recall a neighbor of mine (of some Bulgarian ancestry)..who once told me that, if dung hits the fan in
Yougoslavia, Bulgarians will want their share of Serbia....BINGO.
So, there is definitely some truth in associating Belgrade with Bulgaria. Either/or, both Serbians and Bulgarians are of Slavonic origin, coming into the Balkans
from the same Russian steppes. They basically surrounded 2/3's of the Latin country called Romania. The other 1/3rd was the border with Hungary.
So, if you look on the map: Romania is surrounded by Slavs (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Serbia) and Hungars/Magyars (Hungary - not being associated in any way shape
or form with Atilla The HUN, who had his headquarters in Transylvania back in the 5th century, and today's Hungars/Magyars showed up in the 10th century AD,
some 500 years later, and established themselves on the Panonian Plains, today's Hungary, West of Romania, and started making demands about Transylvania,
as they were/are thinking of having a God given right to it, when in fact any history you read, will tell you exactly what happened - Hungars/Magyars came in the
BALKANS 500 years after Atilla The HUN, year 900 +)
The Magyars established themselves around Lake Balaton and started to settle down. Their language is UGRO-FINIC, remeniscent of the Finnish language.
Definitely close to the language spoken by Atilla's people.
One has to take into account these languages, because the language of an entire population is what represents a country, such as the Israelites...etc..etc
However, in the case of Atilla vs Magyars, it did not work that way. Even though their languages may have been similar, historical fact is that Atilla was in
Transylvania first, year 400 +, and 500 years later, another group from the same Russian steppes, the Magyars showed up.

To my amazement, watching this US gov paid for and bought out channel, called HISTORY channel, while describing Atilla's incursions into the Roman Empire,
they kept saying that he was always retreating back to HUNGARY.
PFFFFF. WHAT HUNGARY?? THERE WAS NO HUNGARY back in 400+ (sorry if I don't give you the exact dates, but the subject is sooooo biased by whoever is trying
to twist history, such that it makes me sick). Please look into it and contradict me if you can."