This argument may not be fancy,
I never said it was an unfancy argument. I said it wasn't an argument period. Definition is not an argument.
but it sure it perplexing.
I never said you wouldn't be perplexed. In fact, one of my points was if you have no idea what you're talking about, you're likely to be confused.
Sure, barbarian and savage are synonyms ... but not because neither is a Nomad.
I never said the reason is because they're not nomads.
It's because both mean "uncivilized".
I never said otherwise. Though I did say there were additional conditions involved. You're just using the least precise definition.
Nomadic means "moves around", which is neither opposite, nor even mutually exclusive with, being uncivilized.
I never said nomadic tribes were not uncivilized. In fact, I was specifically speaking about primitive nomadic tribes.
Nomads are not "non-indigenous" just because they move around from season to season.
I never said it was "just" because they move around.
They're not "wanderers". Nomads travel a route, and are perfectly indigenous to their area.
I never said nomads can't have travel routes. But the fact is one of the defining characteristics of nomadic societies is the absence of ancestral land. A homeless man might beg on the same four corners year after year. That doesn't mean he's no longer homeless.
That area is just a bigger one than "savage villagers".
No. It's not "just" bigger. There's a whole lot of factors that necessarily come along with this distinction that you're missing entirely.*
(Though one could make that point that enough of a "village" means they aren't "savages" at all, which is precisely counter to your curious contraposition with "nomads".)
I never said savages and nomads were collectively exhaustive.
Nor are "barbarians" necessarily indigenous. If encountered in their homeland, then they are. If they're the invading army in a foreign land, then they're not. It's not rocket science.
The people for whom making negative generalizations about indigenous people is considered "problematic" would not be suddenly okay with disparaging someone for their heritage just because they happen to be on vacation in another country at the time.
* Here's what you're missing. The word "savage" is a French derivative of the Latin word, silvaticus; aticus meaning "pertaining to" and silva meaning "woods" or "forest."
Wooded areas are more dense in the resources needed for survival--materials to build shelter, animals to hunt, naturally-growing vegetation. And so primitive societies living off the land don't need to move around a lot. They can establish permanent roots.
Open areas like plains, steppes, and deserts have their resources spread out over a wider area. Primitive societies living off the land in these areas need to be able to move long distances. They cannot establish permanent roots. They have to constantly be on the move to where the resources are.
Difference in size of land area held is hardly the only difference. The terrain differs. Access to resources differs. The set of skills necessary for survival differ. The cultures necessarily differ. What they value will differ. The first group highly value land. The second highly value horses. These are going to be two completely separate categories of peoples. You know the word for the latter; nomads. So what's the word for the former? What's the word that pertains to people of the woods?
If you don't know, you don't know, and that's why your perplexed. I gave you the word. You chose to respond in ignorance rather than assimilate the knowledge.