Sure, the Order is barbaric. To paraphrase Kathryn Hepburn, it's the 13th century, everyone is a barbarian.
We're still pretty barbaric ourselves.
I think that science fiction so often resembles fantasy not only because real science is hard to understand, but that we are far closer to the barbarians of (not so yore) than to that future, non-barbaric society we strain to imagine.
In a narrow sense, Rome and Greece are more civilized, since civilization can be said to be strictly about cities and the societies and behaviors that arise from their flourishing. But that doesn't make them nicer, or less brutal, or more tolerant, or better.
The Order of Hermes is plenty barbaric by modern standards of a standard society but, as many have pointed out, is not especially barbaric by the standard of modern nations.
It comes from a combination of having no higher authority, and having the kind of power that nations have in terms of ability to destroy.
Wizard Wars, like regular wars, aren't necessarily fought to the death. This is important; in many cases a war is not declared with the goal of crushing the other wizard/nation like a bug, but instead to coerce the other into a course of action, or to claim specific resources owned by the other, etc.
So while the UK and Argentina can fight over who gets to call the Falkland Islands theirs, two wizards can legitimately fight over who gets to call a specific apprentice theirs, or a specific magic item or even a specific lab. The fact that Wizard's War sidesteps the Code means it is the go-to option when you want to pursue an agenda that contravenes the Code, and don't want to be punished* for it.
The Code falls apart when wizards wars get out of control; when power blocs form and allies start throwing around alliances of mutual war and then start acting on them. This is what leads to events like the Schism War, or at a nation level a World War. It has done so before, it will likely do so again in the course of the Order's future history.
Wizard's War is roughly the Order's equivalent of the 'Fehde' in the Holy Roman Empire. The English 'feud' is something significantly different.
Somebody who was damaged by another in a way that broke the peace (Latin: treuga) could legally seek retribution on his own: usually involving both extended families and their dependents. The Church considered this a scourge already in the 10th century, and tried to limit its times, means and targets (treuga dei, pax dei). From the 12th century on the enforcement of the peace became the prerogative of the kings again. But only the diet of Worms on August 7th 1495 (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede) banned once and for all by law the 'Fehde' - and afterwards it still took many decades to enforce this.
Let's see, just when the Order abolishes Wizard's War. In most campaigns it still has plenty of time.
i think you may have a point. IIRC in rome for a long time many crimes were punishable by fixed fines. so if i was rich i could go to a poor person,beat them then give them some money and that would be it.
now i wonder what would happen if said poor person hit me in return and returned the money
Technically, I believe the original meaning would be "anybody who doesn't speak (classical) greek" - including such romans as to be un-educated enough to not know at least that one other language.
even with the modern definition of the word the word barbarian would propably still apply to most of the ancient greeks neighbours
.(ironically persia would be the exception. as it was anything but barbaric)
