Am I right/close when I say that:
As the Celts moved through Europe (as the culture called the; 'Germanic Italo-Celts'), when they reached Mid-West (ish) Europe, a splinter group split from the Italo-Celts, to become the startings of the Germanics, spreading all over Germanica.
The Italo-Celts then went on to Gaul, then on to Briton, etc.
The Germanics then became the tribes we know, in North Germanica the nordic (old norse) language was created, Paganism too with the Norse gods. The North Germanic people the Danes sailed over to Scandinavia and settle in what we call Denmark, and Norway-
Then they spread further through Norway and into Sweden becoming what people really see as the "Norse" and "Viking" (although I know 'Viking' isn't a people, most less educated people on the subject don't realise that) cultures, upgrading their language and religion and overall culture to how we know it now?
Is this accurate?
Cheers all :)
In short that's very inaccurate. Germanic languages don't derive from Celtic. North Germany and especially the Scandinavian peninsula are prertty unusual compared to the rest of western Europe in that Celtic place-names are absent.
Scandinavia has been continuously populated since the the ice of the last Ice Age receeded, 11,000 years ago. Then you have things like the Corded Ware culture and whatnot before Indo-European languages arrived thousands of years later, unknown exactly when (much less that it'd have come form Denmark) but by every theory many centuries before the earliest historical records of the names of any Scandinavian peoples, which is Tacitus and Ptolemaios in the first centuries CE. If anything though, the Germanic languages are more likely to have originated in Scandinavia and spread to the continent (as with the Goths) than vice versa.
Germanic paganism and the Germanic languages go back farther than the Old Norse language, they were not 'created' nor 'upgraded' in Scandinavia. The language evolved from the same ancestor as English and during the Viking Age, Old Norse was still largely mutually intelligible with Old English and Old Saxon. Nothing particularly magical or special happened with the language during the Viking Age, it continued to change as it had both before and after.
'Viking' is not a people, but nor is 'Norse'. It is merely a language grouping under the Germanic languages. Swedes in the sense it has now did not exist in the Viking Age, there were Danes, Norwegians, Geats, Gotlanders and Svear (Swedes in the older, tribal sense) and evidence of many subdivisions of these. Archaeological evidence does not support the idea of a homogeneous Norse culture, but rather the opposite - e.g. Ringerike styles, Urnes styles in art, or that there's a half-dozen different burial customs documented in the Scania region alone from that period. Nor did Norse paganism have a single origin. Nor did all social classes have the same religious riuals. (I'm refering here mainly to the archaelogical research of Anders Andrén) People take the Sagas as written by Snorre, centuries later in Iceland, and assume that this is 'Norse Mythology', an accurate representation of a unified belief system that'd existed across all these countries, centuries earlier. But Scandinavian religious archaeology simply doesn't support that simplistic idea.