Migration period - where do they come from?

[Spoonist]

First please forgive my ignorance.

But lately I've been looking up the european migration period on wiki (I know) and other internet sources to refresh my knowledge. However, since these sources are quite limited and written for us laymen there are some things that I don't understand which I hope that people with more recent & academic knowledge could sort out for me. Two things to start things off:

1) Where do the Teutonic/Germani come from?
With that I mean goths/vandal/burgundii/thuringii/lombardi etc.
My understanding from school was that the prelude to the migration era was that a central asian power "pushed" people westward over a couple of centuries, culminating in the teutonic/germanic tribes "arriving" into "europe", which gets noticed by roman historians and thus written down.
But when looking at internet map sources (I know) it looks more like Schleswig-Holstein/baltic/scandinavian expansion from pre-existing positions. Which I thought where leftovers of the nationalist movements in 19-20th centure northern europe.
So when searching on google images for "migration period" maps such as these appear:
Map 1 - Roman empire 116CE
Map 2 - wiki Germanic expansion
Map 3 - Goths
Map 4 - same shit different name
For instance they show the "goths" coming from scandinavia then going into the baltics then pretty much doing a european tour.
Is it just that I misremember two different migrations?

2) Are not the norse/viking age just a continuation of the germanic migration period?
The migration period sees the collapse of west rome. In its wake we see north/east europeans taking their chances. There we see the angles and saxons moving to brittania. The franks and burgundii moving into gaul. etc
So between 200-6/700 we see lots of movement westwards and the emergance of the huns.
Then with the collapse of central power in france/england and the collapse and withdrawal of the huns we see the same pattern in 750-1000 with the norse taking eastern england, northern france, western baltics, etc.
To me this is not two distinctly different periods but a continiuos process.
The angles/saxons/normands/danes/goets/suedis all have similar asatru/wotanic religion, similar letters and archeologically a very similar culture. So I simply see them as the same culture from the same region with different labels on.
When looking at historical persons descriptions of clothes/weapons of Franks/saxons/norse/vikings/etc they are practically interchangeable.
So I don't see the great distinction and seperation.

[Skgoa]

1) Yeah, you are confusing several distinct periods of mass migration.
The "german" people most propably arrived - like all indoeuropeans, i.e to some degree almost all europeans, indians, persians etc. - sometime between 6,500 an 4,000 years ago in several waves. The arriving people then promptly interbred with the population they found, but basicly forced their language and culture on them. IIRC most scholars nowadays say that they came from the south russian steppes and left there due to changing weather conditions.
BTW: the greeks and romans were/are indoeuropeans to and did not arrive long before the others - if not even at the same time or later.


2) Um, I don't get your point.

[Thanas]

This is a bit difficult to answer. First, we have migrations that are not caused by eastward powers, but by other factors (defeat, lack of lands etc). THis is the reason for the goths, the langobardi and the Teutons moving etc. Not all migrations are related.

Then we have the huns and other asiatic powers pushing people to the west and also directing the aforementioned migrations west.

So I don't see the great distinction and seperation.

THat is because you are only looking at the great picture, not the details. If you do the later, you would find that the migration of the norse was radically different from that of others and certainly not compelled by an eastward power.

As for norse and saxons being depicted the same way - do not trust picture sources from that era so much and I also assume you refer to the Bayeux tapestry. However, Bayeux does show essentially two nordic armies fighting anyway, as the Saxons used danish mercenaries.

[Spoonist]

-Skgoa
1) Thanks for clearing that one up.
2) I wouldn't call it a point. Just something that puzzles me.

-Thanas
So they did expand from those areas then? But I thought that the archeological sites shows that the scandinavian peninsula did not support a large population at the time. So how could the Goths come from there? I mean I can see the frankish/saxon/lombardii/etc came from populous areas but not the goths. Would it be that the goths only replaced the leadership in the baltics thus including the existing population already there before they take them along on the westward retreat from the huns through byzans?
Because at the battle of Adrianople they can match and surpass the eastern army of Valens.

That is because you are only looking at the great picture, not the details. If you do the later, you would find that the migration of the norse was radically different from that of others and certainly not compelled by an eastward power.

Yes, the eastern power was long gone and led to the norse expeditions in the east. But from my limited knowledge form popular history the only difference in tech/culture/tactics between early franks/saxons and the norse/danes/jutes would be the fast shore strike tactics with the bigger version of the longships.
So what was the radical difference that I'm ignorant of?

As for norse and saxons being depicted the same way - do not trust picture sources from that era so much and I also assume you refer to the Bayeux tapestry. However, Bayeux does show essentially two nordic armies fighting anyway, as the Saxons used danish mercenaries.

True. But I was more thinking about the likeness of descriptions of the goths when they start showing up in byzan stories with the ones of the norse in later byzan stories. Is that because of a narrative cross-polination then?
Also the archeological evidence from the bogs in Denmark/Schleswig/Holstein, like the nydam bogs, shows that the war culture of the region is almost identical from the 4th century to the middle of the "viking" era. They had the proto-longship, just smaller, they had the round shields, they had the division of approx 1/2spears and 1/3 spatha with some axes and bows sprinkled on top. Which is roughly the same until the 9th & 10th century. The belts/buckles etc are of similar design. The futharc is the same with dialectal differences.
So to me the saxons who expanded from that area during the 3rd-5th century have the same culture as the danes who expanded from it in the 7th-10th century. They just skipped a century during the transition of power.

What am I missing that makes historians put such a heavy distinction between them, apart from the time passed?

[Spoonist]

So I did some reading. (Have too many books and too little time, but it was there in my bookshelf).
In this case isbn 87-7602-006-1 "The spoils of victory - the north in the shadow of the roman empire", it was published by Natialmuseet in Denmark to go with one of their exhibits. Its co-authored by some 20 museum staff of which the most are danish and german, but some are swedish, norwegian, dutch, italian and swiss.
If you can get ahold of it, then I highly recommend it. Just the pictures & graphs are worth it. But the text is good as well, although it is not the esiest read since its not really written by people who aim at a general public, but at least they have tried.

It deals mainly with the bog finds in the danish/schliesvig/holstein area. But also include archeological finds from all around "barbaricum germanica". Which would be the non roman parts of germanium.
The focal time period is 0~500 something. But they mention stuff from the mesolithich and neolithic in passing as well as merovingian and such.

It first goes through, some background, then the roman sources with who they are, what they say and where they differ from each other. So a lot of tacitus and plinys.
Then they go through the conjecture of the archeological finds and gives some conclusions from that. Mostly, it could mean this, that, or this, maybe, that, we are not sure, but one way to interpret is. Etc. Which I love. Because that is usually a good sign, if anyone gives you explicit answers and conjecture from archeology you should look around you for that ten foot pole, but thats just my opinion.
Then it goes to great length through all of the finds and their significance.

All of this wih plenty of lovely pictures of all the artefacts mentioned in the text and map-graphs for easy reference.


So what did I learn? Well lots of tidbits but not a whole lot regarding the bigger picture, but these things stood out to me:

1) One general confusion, for me, given the roman sources are the names. All the different tribes get names and they differ. A lot. But there where three patterns.
First that each 'tribe' had its own name, second that the name sometimes is from the region and its inhabitants, thirdly those 'tribes' are part of a bigger 'tribe' with a name. All of these three are sometimes interchangeable. Which makes sense but doesn't make things easier. So sometimes one tribe would take over the group, then the groupname would change to the tribe name, or they would take a new one, or they would name the new group after the new region. (In a conspiracy to make things difficult for later people I suspect).
An example would be the roman "Strabo"'s descriptions. He mentions the Suebi, but that is just the 'group' name, because he mentions single tribes of the Suebi like Marcomanni, Quadi, Semnones, Langobardi, etc.
But in another source the Langobardi are mentioned to have sub tribes, and so on.
So part of the problem for me was just my narrative mind that wanted simple names that sticks, so that you can follow one 'people' through the ages. That aint gonna happen.

2) The Goths. After reading the book for me its clear that the first step is not a migration per se as are implied by those maps I mentioned in the first post. Instead it is a culture change.
So when the goths "appear" in balticum and poland its not an immigration from norway/sweden, instead its the culture that is superimposed. This so that the local tribes probably got under the "goth" group name while still keeping their own tribes. (Through conquest or throught trade is unknown).
Which explains a lot for me, if its a joining of all the tribes of the whole of modern sweden, poland, balticum and belarus, well then of course they would have a huge population to draw from. Which would explain their overwhelming numbers at the Battle of Adrianople.
Also I'm guessing that the "goth" tribe and the joint tribe with the "goth" groupname split from the advance of the huns. This so that the later goet tribe (which in norse is the same derative) has the same source but no connection to the visigoths and ostrogoths.

3) One cool fact I did not remember but stuck out a bit when I read the book this time around was that there is archeological evidence of 'royal' marriages and exchanges between sealand (denmark) and Sarmatians. Which should/might relate to them both fighting alongside in the macromannic wars.

4) Amber trade. One thing that I had not understand was the importance of the amber trade with rome for the germanic tribes. As soon as rome establish "germania interior", roughly in modern netherlands, the roman goods in danish sealand super increase. So a trade that before went overland through modern slovakia/hungary, was diverted by sea from the baltics to denmark and then to roman ports in "Germania interior". (Hey Thanas, the map says Germania Interior, but I would think it should be Germania Inferior" because there is a superior somewhere else?)

5) My note above regarding norse/viking culture is even more evident. With almost everything that popular history describes as uniquely norse/viking is already mentioned by Tacitus and the archeological sites from before 500CE. So I was expecting to get some clarifications on what I had misunderstood and instead just got a lot of confirmation about my suspicions. The "norse" culture was already there. The saxons are definately "norse" as well as the angles and burgundii. So "norse" culture would be interchangeable with "northern germanic" culture. While not with "southern germanic" culture, from close to the danube river, like quadi chatti, etc. The only difference is time, so some things are refined with newer techs.
-Warrior culture (not to be confused with the martial culture of greece and rome)
-distinct different ethnical traits (from the roman sources, and maybe some of the digs)
-beards and hair in braids or knots (fair or red hair often mentioned, or evident as in the osterby bog)
-monogamous (yes that may suprise you if you have bought into the myths too much)
-the allthing (mentioned by several sources, not digs)
-double prow longship design (the nydam ship is dated to ~190CE with earlier mentions by tacitus and others)
-futhark or runes (also used for furtune telling as evident in finds and mentioned by tacitus)
-round shields (with or without shield boss)
-women may have high status (both as contrast to roman opinions in the sources and in wealth of grave finds)
-artistic style (the intervowen style so many associate with vikings is there in finds from the 1st century)
-stone inscriptions
etc
But mind you this is from personal inference, so don't blame the book if I have got the wrong idea. I'd still like to be showed if I'm wrong.

6) Its only after the marcomannic wars that bows appear frequently in germania. Which also makes a tech change on the round shields. They are suddenly all covered with a hide gut covering the wooden planks of the shield. They had some pictures of experiments of bows against this and it was evident that the old shield while good against spears and swords, split apart when shot with a yew bow. It also protect the shield from fire.

- - - - -

So if anybody wants me to check something in the book while its fresh in my mind and still on the nighttable, feel free to do so.

[Thanas]

That is a lot to read through and to fact-check, please do not be offended if this takes a while.

[Spoonist]

That is a lot to read through and to fact-check, please do not be offended if this takes a while.

Why would I be offended if you put in the effort to fact check stuff? Heck, I'd be thankful if you wasted your time just because some interweb dude you don't know had some crazy ideas he wanted to bounce of on some forum.