Is the Column of Marcus Aurelius subversive?

[Phaichtos]

Interesting post by Dr. Beard. I think I would hesitate before ever suggesting a Roman was trying to convey any sort of "antiwar" message... for better or worse. I've actually been thinking recently about the differences between the two columns (Trajan and M.A.), notably how the latter does indeed seem a fair bit more "violent" than the former. I simply chalked it up to the fact that, while Roman mindset about war wasn't likely to have changed, perhaps in "giving the public what they want to see" (even if it was what the emperor wanted them to see), the sculptor(s) portrayed much more rapine against the barbarians than is evident on Trajan's column for a certain reason; on Trajan's column the barbarians almost look sort of placid and noble at times, whereas on Marc Aurel's, they're screaming in terror and running for their lives. It has always seemed to me that on the former, the emphasis was the Romans' defeat of a noble and worthy foe, whereas with the latter, the emphasis shifted to showing the "unworthy savages" being mowed down by the advance of Roman force. I think this might be related to what Nathan said above, in that in Trajan's time, the wars against "barbarians" were purely offensive, whereas in Aurelius' time, there was at least an element of defensive mentality about "getting them back"; when the public becomes convinced of this mindset, it is kind of sad how much of the stuff seen on M.A.'s column they can tolerate or, indeed, yearn for.