Madhawk said:
Well... I'm not sure exactly why we're bringing prejudice into the equation. But here is the quote we're currently discussing.
"In order to be identifiable as a barbarian, you should talk poorly, dress in furs, and otherwise look primitive."
That could describe anything from a Neanderthal to a Viking in my opinion.
Yeah, no. I think you have a (fairly common) misconception as to how the Norse dressed and acted. They mostly wore Wool, and were fully conversant in their native language. Wordplay and clever speaking was highly praised among them. Kennings, songs and poetry were richly rewarded at times. Furthermore, their culture was at least at the same level as the rest of Dark ages Europe. Hell, they were practically the only people in dark ages Europe (that we know of) that regularly Bathed, and valued personal hygiene.
Looked at historically, the Barbarian as played did not exist, except for through the lens of an outside culture. Sure, the ROMANS thought the Gauls were uncivilized, but looked at from a modern view, no more so than the Romans themselves were. And I'll bet the Gauls had some very unflattering things to say about the Roman way of life as well.
So, in effect, there is no historical model you can use for them, as there never has been a Homo Sapiens Sapient race that dressed exclusively in fur, has a primitive culture, and lacked full use of language. You might make an argument for Barbar as Cro Magnon, but that doesn't work either, as Cro magnon in fact, lacked any metalworking at all. So, no greatswords, or steel armor.
Sadly, much like the gypsy race, the barbar is frequently played as a collection of unfortunate and largely incorrect cultural stereotypes. However, if treated with respect, an existent "primitive" culture can serve as a good potential background for a Barbar or Gypsy, if properly researched.
Sorry, this may have become more longwinded and pedantic than I normally am.