So I watched the twitch stream of Charlemagne AND I WAS SHOCKED!

[Zorbeltuss]

You also could say Southern Swedish Gotland is named after the Geats and not the Goths...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats

I think you confuse Gothia and Gotland, but I'm not certain, anyway Geats and Gauts come from Gothia and Gutes from Gotland.
As far as I've understood, if any culture should be called proto-swedish it would be the Swedes, confusing name I know, they were a more northern culture at the time of the Geats.

/Zorbeltuss

 

[CyaN]

I'm currently reading the decline and fall of the Roman empire by Edward Gibbon and it just so happens that I recently stumbled on the chapter that deals with the origin of the Goths:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=aLcWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=odin+sarmatia&source=bl&ots=1Zftr2_CL1&sig=G0KihKvZoCbq8C5HiMdJ9BtI6u0&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=48AAVM_yIoegyAO_koDQBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=odin%20sarmatia&f=false

All of this of course remains (fancy) speculation yet I must admit that my imagination was/is indulged by such a portrayal of events that lead to the Goths eventually ending up in South Sweden .

P.S. read the letter "f" as an "s" in the source. It helps

I think the point about Odin being a great king who led the Norse people from one place to another and did such and such and was revered as a god after his death, was already made before by Snorri Sturluson, the source for most of the things we know about the Norse world. In the case of Snorri it mostly served as a rationalization, from the POV of a Christian proto-historian, of why the Norses had worshipped "non-existent gods", and also for bonus points a mythical origin for his people. I don't know if Gibbons was aware of Snorri's works or they both just had the same idea.

Not that any historian would actually defend that theory today, but it's certainly a good story.

 

[Vasili1097]

I'm currently reading the decline and fall of the Roman empire by Edward Gibbon and it just so happens that I recently stumbled on the chapter that deals with the origin of the Goths:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=aLcWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=odin+sarmatia&source=bl&ots=1Zftr2_CL1&sig=G0KihKvZoCbq8C5HiMdJ9BtI6u0&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=48AAVM_yIoegyAO_koDQBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=odin%20sarmatia&f=false

All of this of course remains (fancy) speculation yet I must admit that my imagination was/is indulged by such a portrayal of events that lead to the Goths eventually ending up in South Sweden .

P.S. read the letter "f" as an "s" in the source. It helps

I'm curious, why are both variations of the letter s used?

I refuse, by the way, anything that looks like an f is an f.

Spoiler

 

[TeutonicDane23]

The point being that just because some cultures and medieval historians claim heritage from Scandinavia doesn't make it true. Even the Vandals claim heritage from Scandinavia in their scriptures which is also very doubtful. Are you as keen to believe them as well? What's next? Are the Huns also from Scandinavia then should someone stumble across a word that may remind you of the word Scandinavia? When will this nationalistic fabrication of history end?

I don't think people can fathom how vastly underpopulated Scandinavia was a the time. There weren't enough people around to support a migration of tribes and they had little reason to do so...

This discussion is silly because there is no evidence to support the claim. And those who do, do so through dubious sources.

What? No, it is actually widely accepted across all circles of "professionals".

I honestly don't understand what has you so confused. How did all these different peoples speak Germanic languages if they never had anything to do with each other or never had shared roots or background? Literally your "non theory" makes no sense whatsoever.

A few thoughts. First, isn't it pretty widely accepted that Germanic culture/language started in Scandinavia and branched out from there? The Nordic Bronze age stuff is basically all southern Scandinavia (the peninsula) and Denmark; later, the pre-Roman iron age for northern Europe penetrates into lower Saxony, Holland, and Pomerania. Second, how are we determining when a group became that group? One of the names associated with the East Slavs in the Ukraine is the "Eastern Polans" and, presumably, the Slavs were once one unified-ish people. So, who's to say that the Geats/Gutes and Goths weren't kin before the linguistic drift that created the East/West/North divide among the Germanics?

Exactly. I didn't know there was some "massive" debate on whether or not Germanic peoples originated from Southern Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark).

 

[Bonestaak]

I think the point about Odin being a great king who led the Norse people from one place to another and did such and such and was revered as a god after his death, was already made before by Snorri Sturluson, the source for most of the things we know about the Norse world. In the case of Snorri it mostly served as a rationalization, from the POV of a Christian proto-historian, of why the Norses had worshipped "non-existent gods", and also for bonus points a mythical origin for his people. I don't know if Gibbons was aware of Snorri's works or they both just had the same idea.

Not that any historian would actually defend that theory today, but it's certainly a good story.

The page I referred to was actually Gibbon expanding on the knowledge he obtained through reading the Edda I think.
Did Snorri believe that the Norse originated from the frontier-area of Sarmatia/Germania? If so then I'm pretty sure that both historians are on the same page.

As for the "historic" interpretations on the stories and workings of mythology and religion, it still remains as one of the most delightful things I read about so far in my history pursuits, even though they're plausibly wrong, but I guess that goes for every pseudo-scientific theory out there be it Snorri deriving reason and history from the Norse mythos or the wild theories surrounding the JFK shootings .

I'm curious, why are both variations of the letter s used?

I refuse, by the way, anything that looks like an f is an f.

Spoiler

I honestly wouldn't know mate . The book that I used as a source was an unedited version of the actual 18th century work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

Though a quick look through wiki might ʃatiʃfy your question.

 

[Boblof]

The Goth most likely came from (eastern)Götaland and Gotland, it is strongly hinted at by similarities in material culture between the Island of Gotland, eastern Götaland and the Vistula basin in the first century when a Scandinavian material culture (the Wielbark culture) had suddenly replaced the preceeding material culture (the Oksywie culture). More specifically, what makes a Gotlandic or Götlandic origin more likely is the burials; stone circles and bautastones are otherwise only known from Gotland and Götaland but they show up in the vistula basin at the same time as we would expect the Goths to have lived in the area (along with other east germanic peoples like Rugians, Heruli and Vandals obviously, so It is ofc possible that it was some of theese other tribes that came from Gotland and/or Götaland).

Then we have etymological evidence, Gautar (Old norse for Geats), Gutar (name for the inhabitants on the island of Gotland) and Gutans (Goths in Gothic) all share the same etymological root, the protogermanic "Gutô" meaning "to pour". So they had the same origin, if a Geat and a Goth would have met before proto germanic started to split they would have called themselves by the exact same word. This strongly indicates that all three populations are connected.

Then there is linguistic evidence, Gutnish have some characteristics in common with Gothic that are unusual in other germanic languages, but theese similarities are not in themselves very strong indicators.

And then there is historic evidence, Jordanes history of the goths from 551 AD tells of how the Goths originally came on three ships from Scandza (Scandinavia) to Gothiscandza (which is probably identical to the concept of Hreiðgotaland in the norse sagas, Hreiðgotaland being an area corresponding to northern Poland), and as crazy the story becomes from that point on it still shows fascinating similarities with Gutasaga which tells of how Gutar in some distant past emigrated across the sea and ended up in the land of the Greeks. Now someone might say that the writers of the Gutasaga would have known of Jordanes account, but that is a hard case to argue in favour of considering that the getica was rediscovered (1442) by western historians about about 90 years after Gutasaga was first written down (about 1350), making it unlikely that the local priests on Gotland would have known about the Getica.


All things put together, the Goths most likely came from what is modern day Sweden, if we had a time machine I would bet money on it.

 

[TeutonicDane23]

The Goth most likely came from (eastern)Götaland and Gotland, it is strongly hinted at by similarities in material culture between the Island of Gotland, eastern Götaland and the Vistula basin in the first century when a Scandinavian material culture (the Wielbark culture) had suddenly replaced the preceeding material culture (the Oksywie culture). More specifically, what makes a Gotlandic or Götlandic origin more likely is the burials; stone circles and bautastones are otherwise only known from Gotland and Götaland but they show up in the vistula basin at the same time as we would expect the Goths to have lived in the area (along with other east germanic peoples like Rugians, Heruli and Vandals obviously, so It is ofc possible that it was some of theese other tribes that came from Gotland and/or Götaland).

Then we have etymological evidence, Gautar (Old norse for Geats), Gutar (name for the inhabitants on the island of Gotland) and Gutans (Goths in Gothic) all share the same etymological root, the protogermanic "Gutô" meaning "to pour". So they had the same origin, if a Geat and a Goth would have met before proto germanic started to split they would have called themselves by the exact same word. This strongly indicates that all three populations are connected.

Then there is linguistic evidence, Gutnish have some characteristics in common with Gothic that are unusual in other germanic languages, but theese similarities are not in themselves very strong indicators.

And then there is historic evidence, Jordanes history of the goths from 551 AD tells of how the Goths originally came on three ships from Scandza (Scandinavia) to Gothiscandza (which is probably identical to the concept of Hreiðgotaland in the norse sagas, Hreiðgotaland being an area corresponding to northern Poland), and as crazy the story becomes from that point on it still shows fascinating similarities with Gutasaga which tells of how Gutar in some distant past emigrated across the sea and ended up in the land of the Greeks. Now someone might say that the writers of the Gutasaga would have known of Jordanes account, but that is a hard case to argue in favour of considering that the getica was rediscovered (1442) by western historians about about 90 years after Gutasaga was first written down (about 1350), making it unlikely that the local priests on Gotland would have known about the Getica.


All things put together, the Goths most likely came from what is modern day Sweden, if we had a time machine I would bet money on it.

Tons of info and facts. Thank you for the well thought out and great post!

 

[Boblof]

Tons of info and facts. Thank you for the well thought out and great post!

Thanks

 

[HuzzButt]

Has anyone brought up the Atlantica event from EU2?

Well it's clear that the goths mustered their cavalry in the province of Småland, then known as Ridland...
I don't subscribe to the theory that goths came from Sweden or even Gotland. I'm gonna go with the standard reasonable explanation that the invader culture was diverse and loosely connected by a somewhat common trading area.

 

[Bonestaak]

The Goth most likely came from (eastern)Götaland and Gotland, it is strongly hinted at by similarities in material culture between the Island of Gotland, eastern Götaland and the Vistula basin in the first century when a Scandinavian material culture (the Wielbark culture) had suddenly replaced the preceeding material culture (the Oksywie culture). More specifically, what makes a Gotlandic or Götlandic origin more likely is the burials; stone circles and bautastones are otherwise only known from Gotland and Götaland but they show up in the vistula basin at the same time as we would expect the Goths to have lived in the area (along with other east germanic peoples like Rugians, Heruli and Vandals obviously, so It is ofc possible that it was some of theese other tribes that came from Gotland and/or Götaland).

Then we have etymological evidence, Gautar (Old norse for Geats), Gutar (name for the inhabitants on the island of Gotland) and Gutans (Goths in Gothic) all share the same etymological root, the protogermanic "Gutô" meaning "to pour". So they had the same origin, if a Geat and a Goth would have met before proto germanic started to split they would have called themselves by the exact same word. This strongly indicates that all three populations are connected.

Then there is linguistic evidence, Gutnish have some characteristics in common with Gothic that are unusual in other germanic languages, but theese similarities are not in themselves very strong indicators.

And then there is historic evidence, Jordanes history of the goths from 551 AD tells of how the Goths originally came on three ships from Scandza (Scandinavia) to Gothiscandza (which is probably identical to the concept of Hreiðgotaland in the norse sagas, Hreiðgotaland being an area corresponding to northern Poland), and as crazy the story becomes from that point on it still shows fascinating similarities with Gutasaga which tells of how Gutar in some distant past emigrated across the sea and ended up in the land of the Greeks. Now someone might say that the writers of the Gutasaga would have known of Jordanes account, but that is a hard case to argue in favour of considering that the getica was rediscovered (1442) by western historians about about 90 years after Gutasaga was first written down (about 1350), making it unlikely that the local priests on Gotland would have known about the Getica.


All things put together, the Goths most likely came from what is modern day Sweden, if we had a time machine I would bet money on it.

I agree that it's most likely that the Goths came from Sweden, however;

-The Getica is a direct abridgement of the larger work of Cassiodorius, a minister under Theodoric. Cassiodorius' work is now lost to us but his history of the Goths served to extol and distort rather than to amply summarize the heritage of the Goths (most likely to please his liege and wanton patriotism) according to J.B. Bury.
Given the fact that the Getica is a rough interpolation and Cassiodorius intentions, I highly doubt that the Getica would qualify as historic evidence to the deeds of the Goths.

-As for the etymological and linguistic evidence, I'm prone to agree with you there yet I can't incline myself to do so given the fact that a lot of these tribes, like you said, shared so many common traits with each other that mistakes can always be easily made through grammatic connections in identifying the home-regions of certain peoples and tribes.


If it weren't for the archaeological proof, it would have been a lot harder to give some credulity to the notion that the Goths originated from Sweden, yet I suppose that goes for everything history-related .

 

[CSAGeneral]

The Goths were a Germanic people who moved from southern Sweden to what's now Pommerania, and then from there to the Black Sea, then split between the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. Visigoths ended up in Spain. Ostrogoths ended up in Italy, and later conquered by the Lombards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths

Modern Scholarship has some dispute, but it appears to be the majority consensus.

Yes! And to all the people saying "who cares where the Goths were from" or, "we're all from Africa", please go away.

 

[CSAGeneral]

Yeah, the Ostrogothic kingdom got wrecked by Belisarius and Narses, but that conquest didn't hold.

I think I skipped for brevity :3

You are one of the only people on here who gets the history right, Summercat. Paradox should hire us to stand behind the devs and whack them every time they say something like "Charlemagne crowned hissef"

 

[CSAGeneral]

I think the Goths did come from southern Sweden, as the etymological connection is undeniable.
However they left Scandinavia like when? When Jesus was still around? Earlier?

To call them proto-swedes is a big stretch.

When Jesus was still around? Really? Your grasp of historical knowledge is horrible. They were southern Swedes, yes. Not the Swedes of Stockholm/Uppland area, but the Gothic migrations began in 376. Jesus died in about 32. So you are only 340 years off.

 

[CSAGeneral]

HAHA, Ok. Even if that is true (which most likely it is), what's your point?

Yeah and over time (thousands and thousands, yes I mean literally THOUSANDS, of years "North of the Sahara/Middle East/Europe/Northern Europe/Scandinavia")those people in Scandinavia (Southern Sweden, Southern Norway, and Denmark) developed/evolved into their own separate group of people called "Germanics". And those Germanic people eventually started migrating out of "Scandinavia" and settling in "Germania" on the continent. Eventually those Germanic tribes basically created the modern nation states of Western Europe and were the power who vacuumed up/conquered the deteriorating Western Roman Empire.

Surprised you don't know this stuff being from Sweden. I recommend you read the Early Germans by Malcolm Todd. (PS he is using "German" in his title to mean Germanic peoples)
Thank you!
Exactly, obviously they changed since when they left Southern Scandinavia (since someone gets their panties in a bunch if you call it Sweden LOL) and became "East Germanic people".

TeutonicDane, I give you a thumbs up!

 

[Thure]

When Jesus was still around? Really? Your grasp of historical knowledge is horrible. They were southern Swedes, yes. Not the Swedes of Stockholm/Uppland area, but the Gothic migrations began in 376. Jesus died in about 32. So you are only 340 years off.

Nope. You are wrong. It's mostly believed that the Goths, if they are from Southern Scandinavia, already moved to northern Poland/POmmerania around Jesus times.

'The Goths are believed to have crossed the Baltic Sea sometime between the end of this period (ca 300 BC) and AD 100.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture

 

[CSAGeneral]

Nope. You are wrong. It's mostly believed that the Goths, if they are from Southern Scandinavia, already moved to northern Poland/POmmerania around Jesus times.

'The Goths are believed to have crossed the Baltic Sea sometime between the end of this period (ca 300 BC) and AD 100.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture

Okay, fine, they were in the already Germanic northern coast of Europe by 100. Technically, you are right, but come on. The southern Baltic is Scandinavia's backyard. The main Gothic invasions of both eastern and western Europe did not begin until the late fourth century.

 

[CSAGeneral]

Its highly unlikely that they came from Sweden. Goths came from elsewhere, and its just some Swedish "historians" have tried to tie when to local places in Southern Sweden (Småland having some museum "proving" this fact and names several places as birthplace of Kings and names of villages coming from great Gothic leaders) as well as Östergötland and Västergötland (saying that the Ostrogoth was Eastgeats and Visigoths was Westgeats). It's bullshit really with pure guesses and nationalism. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

You, sir, are 100% wrong.

 

[Boblof]

I agree that it's most likely that the Goths came from Sweden, however;

-The Getica is a direct abridgement of the larger work of Cassiodorius, a minister under Theodoric. Cassiodorius' work is now lost to us but his history of the Goths served to extol and distort rather than to amply summarize the heritage of the Goths (most likely to please his liege and wanton patriotism) according to J.B. Bury.
Given the fact that the Getica is a rough interpolation and Cassiodorius intentions, I highly doubt that the Getica would qualify as historic evidence to the deeds of the Goths.

The Getica at large is not even slightly realistic, I agree, however the part about their origins do not strike me as something that they would have made up for the sake of glorifying themselves. If we would argue that they would have made it up to extol themselves then we would have to ask why they choose the frigid, barbaric and, to most people in their new homeland, compleatly unknown location of "Scandza" rather than say that they were the descendants of Troyans, Atlanteeans, Hyperborians, Cimbrians, Teutons or some old testament characters or peoples. That it then does fit well toghether with for example Gutasaga without there being any way that the writers of one could have been influenced by the other I think does alot to corroborate that account, although not perhaps the details of it.

-As for the etymological and linguistic evidence, I'm prone to agree with you there yet I can't incline myself to do so given the fact that a lot of these tribes, like you said, shared so many common traits with each other that mistakes can always be easily made through grammatic connections in identifying the home-regions of certain peoples and tribes.

I think the etymological evidence is stronger than the liguistic evidence, ethnonyms based off the protogermanic "Gutô" arn't terribly common, there is Gautar (Geats), Gutar (Gotlanders), Gutans (Goths) and possibly Jutar (Jutes, but that etymology is not as clear).

If it weren't for the archaeological proof, it would have been a lot harder to give some credulity to the notion that the Goths originated from Sweden, yet I suppose that goes for everything history-related .

Always

 

[Druplesnubb]

Wait, are you saying that the Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia and then moved to Germany? Since Scandinavia was populated from the south, wouldn't it make more sense the other way around? Or did the proto-Germans all die out or leave Germany, before the Scandinavians started migrating to it?

 

[IsadorBG]

Wait, are you saying that the Germanic peoples originated in Scandinavia and then moved to Germany? Since Scandinavia was populated from the south, wouldn't it make more sense the other way around? Or did the proto-Germans all die out or leave Germany, before the Scandinavians started migrating to it?

The Scandinavia theory is basically some indo-european migrated to southern scandinavia, those indo-european then became the proto-german and invaded the south later wich was occupied by celts mosltly. They start to split off then.