To begin, I do understand the differences between the two friezes could be due to propaganda for Roman citizens but I was curious whether or not the Marcomannic Wars were significantly more violent than the Dacian Wars seen in Trajan’s Column. From the Discussions board on Canvas, it seems that people assume that the Dacian campaign was a standard imperial expansion campaign that relied on a preemptive strike that not only expands the Roman empire but also subdues a potential threat before it happened. However, through my research, I believe that the Dacian Wars were more savage than the Marcomannic Wars and thus, the friezes of the two columns do not accurately reflect the difference in savagery of the two military campaigns.
To begin, one can be easily misled by the scenes on Trajan’s Column that the two Dacian Wars were one of order, honor, and virtue. This is supported by certain kinds of “set” scenes that are continuously repeated over the course of the frieze. Examples such as adlocutio (Scene LXXIII) where Trajan addresses his troops, the numerous profectio (Scene XXII) and Scene XI, the first scene of construction (Richmond 2, 1935). However, these scenes of order and honor downplay the horrors of war, which is most likely due to the fact that the frieze was propaganda constructed to highlight the “labour by which history was made” (Richmond 3, 1935) and to address the fear and distrust of the Roman military by the urban population of Rome, done through the depictment of the Dacian campaigns as wars with little, if any, collateral damage (Dillon 268, 2009).
However, this could not be further from the truth. Through my research, I am led to believe that the Dacian Wars were much more brutal than the Marcomannic Wars by a significant margin. Unlike the other northern tribes Marcus Aurelius faced in his Marcomannic campaigns, the Dacians had ample resources of iron and copper and were competent metal workers (Schmitz 23, 2005). Due to this, the Dacians were able to raise a force of 250,000, all heavily armed. A stark contrast to the lightly armed forces of other tribes, the Dacians were able to greatly reduce Rome’s technological advantage and could raise a force to successfully invade the Roman Empire.
While Emperor Trajan initiated the first Dacian War, it was by no means a preemptive strike. Rather, it was a response to Dacian actions in Emperor Domitian’s Dacian campaign, similar to the scenario of Emperor Marcus Aurelius’ Marcomannic campaigns. The attack on the Roman province of Moesia by Dacian king Duras led to the deployment of several legions to Moesia. Here, the Roman military suffered a loss equaling the severity of the Teutoburg Forest massacre. In the First Battle of Tapae, multiple legions (Legions I & II Adiutrix, Flavia IV and VI Ferrata), lead by Praetorian Prefect Cornelius Fuscus, were ambushed and massacred, losing their legionary standards in the process (Wheeler 92, 2010). This stoked the fires of vengeance and ultimately upped the severity of the Dacian campaigns under Trajan.
Under Trajan, the Roman’s march toward the Dacian capital of Sarmizegethusa Regia was one of destruction and death. Romans, masters of wiping cities off the face of the earth, left behind a swath of destruction, burning, poisoning, annihilating every Dacian town, village, and fort on the march to the heart of Dacia (Wheeler 108, 2010). Ultimately, the campaign ended during the summer of 106 AD at the Dacian capital. A fortress in the heart of the Orashtie mountains, surrounded by sheer slopes plunging into the Alb and Godeannul Rivers, exploited every topographical advantage with artillery towers blanketing every path into the capital. Of course, this didn’t deter the Roman legions as they simply destroyed every water supply into the Dacian capital, simply starving out the capital and razing the capital, in a manner magnitudes above the razing of Carthage. Simply put, Sarmizegethusa Regia is now an archeological nightmare due to the lack of archeological remainders.
If that wasn’t enough, the Romans eradicated all traces of the Dacian religion. The Romans not only wiped out a kingdom, but also a religion (Wheeler 110, 2010). Needless to say, the frieze of Trajan’s Column does not accurately reflect the disparity in savagery between the two military campaigns. I do understand that the purpose of the two columns were different but, unlike general opinion, the Dacian campaigns was in no way less severe than the Marcomannic campaign. Simply put, the Marcomannic campaign was a standard rebellion that had to be put down whereas the Dacian campaign contained a violent savagery not seen since the Punic Wars.
Bibliography
Richmond, I. A. “Trajan’s Army on Trajan's Column.” Papers of the British School at Rome 13 (1935): 1–40. doi:10.1017/S0068246200005778.
Davies, G. A. T. "Trajan's First Dacian War." The Journal of Roman Studies 7 (1917): 74-97. doi:10.2307/295582.
Wheeler, Everett L. "Rome's Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the Danube." Rome's Dacian Wars:
Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the Danube 74, no. 4 (October 2010).
Dillon, Sheila. "Representation of War in Ancient Rome." Representation of War in Ancient Rome, June 15, 2009.
Schmitz, Michael. "The Dacian Threat." The Dacian Threat, 2005.