Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr

1. In the 4th milennium BCE, pre-IE peoples from Ukraine move northwards to the Baltic shores and then to Denamrk and Sweden creating a hybrid culture (central Sweden is colonized then)
2. In the 3rd milennium BCE, IE peoples known variously as the Battle Axe peoples and the Corded Ware people expand into all Central Europe from Belarus to Western Germany. A variation of them (the Individual Burials culture) takes over the Scandinavian region. This is one of the moments that can be considered at the origin of Germanic linguistic group.
3. In the Bronze Age (c. 1300 BCE) the IE peoples of the Urnfields culture, stabilished north of the Alps expand in deferent directions, influencing the Nordic and East-Central European (IE) cultures. I'm uncertain if this influence can be considered as a invasion or not. If so, it could be another startpoint of Germanization.
   

Actually there is nothing that truly decisively showed that the Franks actually conquered territories from the Gallo-romans other than kingdom of Syagrius. Below is the ultimate proof that the Franks represented a considerable proportion of the population of northern Gaul prior to the fall of rome.

The vast majority of Frankish graves were in fact in northern France although it is traditionally believed the Franks came from the exterior as an invader. There are evidences the Franks weren't like any other barbarians and weren't much like a foreign entity, foreign to northern Gaul (graves of 20% or more of Frankish mingled with the Gauls were frequent prior to the barbarian in northern Gaul). It could actually have been a rebellion in northern France, the Franks no longer accepting romans rule. The Frank didn't overun Northern gaul but shielded it. The Franks in fact were an obscure tribe during the barbarian invasion. Remember Clovis Capital was in tournai (Wallonia, a celtic stronghold) before he moved it to Paris. It is now believed that Syagrius lasted only that long because of the Franks shielded them from the barbarian.

How else would you explain, all tribes of northern Gaul rallied behind the Franks and not the burgunds, Goth or any other clan. How else can you explain the north and south divide of France where all agricultural tools in the north have Frankish name  while in the south they have romans name.

How else would explain tyhe Franks favoured wine production over beer production and have law to protect vineyard from raid?

The Franks being Germanic is propaganda bullsh!t  by celtophobes and the enemies of France. Although I don't deny their germanic culture, racially anything near western germany or eastern France proved to have a high frequency of "Celtic" genes.

Race over culture. 

My post is coherent; it is you that isn't getting the point. He claimed the Franks overran Northern Gauls, when in reality the Franks were already embedded into the Gallic society prior to the barbarian invasion. Northern Gaul readily rallied behind the Franks. Why would that be? Why didn't they rally behind the Goths, burgundian or behind even Syagrius. This was because the people could relate to the Franks and not the Goths, burgundians or even the romans.

The simple fact that all agricultural tools in northern gaul have Frankish names proved that even the peasantry were of Frankish or more precisely of Franco-Gallic origin.

Saying the Franks were merely germanic is an abomination and degradation of the French heritage which includes our beloved franks (make no mistake about that.) That anti-french propaganda must cease. History is well known to be little more than a lie, time to re-establish the truth.

My point is the Frank is nothing like the other barbarians for the follwoing reason:

1. They preferred wine over beer and had laws that protect vineyard.

2. The Franks was the from areas that had strong celtic population.

3. The Franks had been labelled as Galli by the romans.

 I do not deny the Franks were culturally germanic, but racially they were more akin to the Gaul as every tribes that bordered the Franco-Germans regions were and their ultimate origin isn't scandinavia. They picked the culture when they transited through germany.

THe sicambri (most rulers of the Frank claimed the decend from) were original a scythian tribe not an scandinavian tribe. get that straight. Germanic isn't a race but a mosaic of races from all other a wide area.

Extract

The Sicambri (var. Sicambres, Sigambrer, Sugumbrer, Sugambri) were originally a Scythian or Cimmerian tribe who once inhabited the mouth of the river Danube. The Merovingian kings claimed their descent from the Sicambri, asserting that this tribe had changed their name to "Franks" in 11 BC under the leadership of a certain chieftain called "Franko". The Merovingians traced their Sicambrian origins from Marcomir I, king of the Cimmerians (died 412 BC), and ultimately to the kings of Troy, but this list of rulers is not accepted as historical.

The West Germanic tribe of the Sigambrer (Sicambri) appear around 55 BC, during the time of the Roman Empire, on the right bank of the Rhine between the rivers Ruhr and Sieg, in an area that is today part of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The river Sieg, as well as the city of Siegen, were said to be named for this tribe.

In 11 BC, they were forced by Nero Claudius Drusus to move to the left side of the Rhine, where they evidently formed a central component of the confederacy of Franks. Their new homeland was located in what is now the region of Gelderland in the Netherlands, on the lower Rhine river.

Gregory of Tours states that the Frankish leader Clovis, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith in 496, was referred to as Sicamber by the officiating bishop of Rheims -- recalling again the link between the Sugambri and Clovis' ancestors, the Merovingian royal house of the Franks.

The Sicambri (var. Sicambres, Sigambrer, Sugumbrer, Sugambri) were originally a Scythian or Cimmerian tribe who once inhabited the mouth of the river Danube. The Merovingian kings claimed their descent from the Sicambri, asserting that this tribe had changed their name to "Franks" in 11 BC under the leadership of a certain chieftain called "Franko". The Merovingians traced their Sicambrian origins from Marcomir I, king of the Cimmerians (died 412 BC), and ultimately to the kings of Troy, but this list of rulers is not accepted as historical.

The West Germanic tribe of the Sigambrer (Sicambri) appear around 55 BC, during the time of the Roman Empire, on the right bank of the Rhine between the rivers Ruhr and Sieg, in an area that is today part of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The river Sieg, as well as the city of Siegen, were said to be named for this tribe.

In 11 BC, they were forced by Nero Claudius Drusus to move to the left side of the Rhine, where they evidently formed a central component of the confederacy of Franks. Their new homeland was located in what is now the region of Gelderland in the Netherlands, on the lower Rhine river.

Gregory of Tours states that the Frankish leader Clovis, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith in 496, was referred to as Sicamber by the officiating bishop of Rheims -- recalling again the link between the Sugambri and Clovis' ancestors, the Merovingian royal house of the Franks.

It is you that is clearly confused and incapable of grasping the nuance in my argument.

Yes they were allowed to settle in Northern Gaul prior to the barbarian invasion, and who is denying that? Tell me who. So during the barbarian invasion, there were a large already a large population of Franks inhabiting Northern Gaul (The Frankish impact on Northern French agriculture proved so). IF the Franks (or Franco-Gauls by the time of the Barbarian invasion) were insiders, how can you truly speak of invasion? And the Franks fought hard against the first wave of barbarians, preventing the kingdom of Syagrius from collapsing. Are you getting that? Here is how Gaul looked like after the first wave of barbarians. Took note how Gaul collapsed in the south but not in the north. When the Franks took control of Gaul, their first objective was to clear the barbarian from the land. They suceeded against the Goth but not against the burgundians -- which was a mistake since the Burgundians were a pain in the @ss of France for a long long time.

 After the Franks (no barbarians)

Franc = Frank

Wisigoth = Visigoth

Burgondie = burgundy

1) First you say that Franks were culturally distinct, then you say that cultural identification isn't important.

Again you are confused. Yes, I said they were culturally distinct, but for race matters most over culture. Norman clans are like Family and blood over everything else.

2) First you say that Franks were Celtic and then you say that Franks are Scythian. The last time I checked, Scythians weren't Celtic.

More confusion from your part. I said the Frank were racially celtic overwhemingly and that on racial term, since they resided in areas that were traditionally by celts. And their ultimate origins (ultimate as as far as they could remember is scythian, how hard is that to understand.