Is the Column of Marcus Aurelius subversive?

[Epictetus]

Cambridge's Mary Beard caught my attention by saying this in her blog recently:

Many modern observers of the column of Marcus Aurelius... have wondered just how 'subversive' were the scenes of Roman violence depicted. The theme is Marcus Aurelius' campaigns against the Germans. There is much more here than on Trajan's column of (for example) women and children getting abducted or slaughtered... Was this all celebratory? Or was there at least a strand here of displaying (even if not directly questioning) the very nasty side of Roman conquest?

As an example she posted this image:


This is an interesting idea, but I'm hesitant. Is there any other evidence that Romans thought in this manner? If so, would the artists take it upon themselves to do it? Who would approve the images?

Official propoganda, such as on coins, seemed to be pretty tightly controlled. I'm wondering if this is taking a modern mindset and placing it upon the Romans.

[Nathan Ross]

I'm not sure if subversive is the right word - you'd have to ask what was being subverted, and who was doing the subverting... As you suggest, David, Roman monuments were very public and probably tightly controlled in their content and 'message' - not the ideal place for sneaky critiques of imperial policy! If there is a harsher presentation of war on the column of Aurelius, compared to that of Trajan (and, again as you say, we can't be too sure that Romans would find depictions of violence towards women and children quite as alarming as we do today - vae victis and so on), then it might have more to do with the differences between the Antonine and Trajanic eras, and the type of war being commemorated. The Dacians never posed a direct threat to Rome, or the borders of Italy, but the Germans in the 170s certainly did, having crossed the frontier and besieged Aquileia. The Marcomannic wars were desperately defensive, and later punitive, and perhaps the column merely records a far more sanguine retribution against a more dangerous enemy: the Roman public might want to see the Germans punished in their homes, so to speak.

But also, a lot changed in the 70 or so years separating Trajan from Marcus Aurelius - the empire was in a dire condition for a while, threatened on two fronts, ravaged by plague. I think there is evidence of a change in sensibilities during this period, perhaps: not only Marcus's own 'philosophical' nature, but a change in notions of the individual and the state (I'm thinking of Hadrian's legislation banning the execution of slaves, leading towards Ulpian's belief in the inherent equality of mankind). If the Aurelian column did indeed portray war in a harsh light, then perhaps it was intended more to subvert the complacency of the metropolitan Roman public than the principles of imperial glory - a sort of warning: support your army and your emperor or this could happen to you!...

- Nathan

[Jona Lendering]

If the Aurelian column did indeed portray war in a harsh light, then perhaps it was intended more to subvert the complacency of the metropolitan Roman public than the principles of imperial glory - a sort of warning: support your army and your emperor or this could happen to you!...

I agree. The same seems to be true for triumphal entries and gladiatorial contests, on which all terrible details were shown, to make sure that people understood what they might suffer when they did not support their leaders.

[Epictetus]

Good point. That sounds much more likely to me than any sort of "anti-war" message.

I wish Dr. Beard had been more specific. Her statement was careful, but she must at least have respected the idea.

Another thing I thought of is Marcus' writings on always keeping death in mind - he specifically mentions the aftermath of a battlefield slaughter. This was for philosophical reasons, though, and I can't see something like this being put on the column for those reasons.

[Nathan Ross]

Another thing I thought of is Marcus' writings on always keeping death in mind - he specifically mentions the aftermath of a battlefield slaughter. This was for philosophical reasons, though, and I can't see something like this being put on the column for those reasons.

Sure, we don't know quite why Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations, but any writings by a Roman emperor, however 'personal', will have been to some degree public, and would reflect the concerns and mores of the era. So if Aurelius muses on the sorrows of battlefield slaughter, then such ideas will have had currency in the ongoing discourse of the Roman state, include the ways in which that state depicts itself on public monuments.

- Nathan

[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.