The Germanic peoples were originally from Scandinavia, and during the Classical Antiquity period - although not quite the Roman empire - their tribes were numerous and formidable all across Europe. You have the Goths who went as far as Anatolia (and then I believe they went even further - conquering Rome and Iberia, but I think that has more to do with the fall of the Roman Empire more than my question), the Franks in Gaul, the Angles and the Saxons in Britannia, and of course the Germans (Suebi? Marcomanni?) in Germania. Most striking to me is the fact that Germania is named after peoples that did not even originate from western-central Europe, but after Scandinavian migrants.
More puzzling to me is the fact that (to my knowledge) Scandinavia has a relatively harsh climate and poor soil, at least in comparison to continental Europe. My understanding is that soil fertility/agricultural strength would be a pretty good indicator of a civilization's population density, development, and perhaps war prowess. Powerful ancient civilizations that arose out of the Indus Valley, Yellow River, and the Nile Valley went on to subjugate other peoples and conquer lands.
However, in the case of the Germanic peoples the pattern seems to be reversed. How and why were the presumably less prosperous Scandinavian Germans able to triumph over the indigenous population of Germania? What happened to the indigenous populations? Why was the migration pattern not the other way around - it seems counter-intuitive that the Germanic peoples migrated through Finland, Sweden/Norway, and Denmark only to come back down to continental Europe. Why did they migrate so often?
To my knowledge they didn't originate in all of Scandinavia but the region of Denmark and Northern Germany. From there they moved on to the North, South and East. And they moved for the very reason you mentioned: to get to more fertile lands.
Also in the time before Germanic people settled in main Europe it was quite sparsely populated, especially the Northern and Eastern regions. They wouldn't have to wage war all the time on their way south.
Hello friend.
I see this an old thread, but what the heck.
A thing to note is that a lot of tribes claiming to originate from Scandinavia probably had little idea. Their history was written down when they did not live in Scandinavia but had established kingdoms elsewhere. There seemed to be a tendency for Goths, Burgundians, Franks and what not to all claim to be from Scandinavia because it was a good story and gave them a sort of identity. But the truth is there is no way so many powerful tribes could be from Jutland, Sweden and Norway. Recent science suggest Goths were from Poland for instance. I will look in my notes and come up with some litterature that can back up my claims and PM it to you. Its very interesting indeed. Jutland has good soil! Sweden nay (except the south) and Norway nay.
The Kelts and Etruskan lived in "middle" Europe and was most likely forced out or assimilated, why you have remains in the outskirts such as Ireland. In Bretagne aswell some old folks still speak the celtic tounge. Aye.