I knew the word had something to do with language of outsiders, but had been thinking it had to do with the lack of a writing system. Thanks for the info. Hopefully I'll remember it the next time a topic about it comes up.
All or most armies raped & pillaged, but not all gained a reputation about it. How do you think the word got the connotation that's been passed down to us, if all it meant was those who's language sounds like "nonsense"? Even nonsense is a weighted word, assumes a touch of superiority of those who didn't speak & understand the language that sounded like "bar-bar". Belittle your foes if you don't make them evil, as simple "savages" are easier to defeat than an army you allow to be perceived as your equal.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts = Greeks are not to be trusted or have no honor. It is not known whether or not the wooden horse was real. On the one hand you've got cool smart move, but on the other, to "outsiders" you need to "cheat" to win.
As for the Romans, I haven't studied their word for barbarian. I assume it would have to do with the political organization of the opponent. Those invading Germanic (even if Arian Christian) tribes were not a well-organized empire.
The Vandals didn't need a well-organized empire to sack Rome & gain a reputation that lives to this day in the word vandalism.
But the Roman legions did their share of raping and pillaging. Look what they did to Jerusalem in the late first century AD--they leveled it to the ground. There are many other examples of Rome doing this sort of thing. In this context I don't think barbarian refers to the destructive power of an army.
Those who wrote the history were "civilized" & those who were defeated by them were all "barbarians".
Words change meaning over time. That is why they come to have several meanings. The context will usually indicate which meaning is the correct one. But you also have to consider the age, the historical time, in which the word is used. You might want to look at post 55.
Originally our word villain didn't refer to the moral character of a person. It simply indicated a person's birth. A vilein was a person of low birth in the middle ages--a serf who also had the status of a freeman. Today a villain is a wicked person.
The same is true of the word noble. It meant someone of a high birth in the middle ages, like a duke or an earl. It didn't carry a moral meaning. Today we think of someone being noble who is magnanimous, regardless of their social rank or status.
Was it possible for a vilein or serf to commit an act which we today would call noble and magnanimous without referring to his socal rank? Was it possible for a nobleman or aristocrat to commit an act we today would call villainous or brutish? I would say yes to both questions because words change meaning over time.
As for ancient Greeks hurling insults at their enemies, they probably did. I have been know to hurl an insult at someone I loved very much. It's a very easy thing to do.