Duke University The Fall of Rome: Understanding “Barbarization” through the Shifting Strategic and Tactical Requirements of Roman Warfare in Late Antiquity Curtis Lee CLST 551S: Roman Archaeology Alicia Jiménez 20 November 2020 Introduction In the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire had begun to see the incursion of various aggressive peoples along its borders on the Rhine, Danube, and in the East along the Euphrates. Contemporaneous to these new threats, the Roman Army had begun to increasingly adapt to the regional peculiarities present within its respective zones of operations and through its use of auxilia and incorporation of “barbarizing” affects in the legions. In doing so, it has been said to have become institutionally barbarized—adopting the same barbarian affects used by the “other” who they so opposed—which has, in turn, led Classical scholarship to point towards this “barbarization” as a diminution of the capabilities of the Roman army, and an overdetermined cause of the collapse of the Roman Empire. However, this paper seeks to upset this traditionalist narrative through an examination of the archaeological site as Dura-Europos. Using this mid-3rd century site from the province of Syria Creole, this paper seeks to understand the shifting strategic goals of the Roman army during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD in response to the aggressive expansion of the Sassanid Persians, and how the material record reflects both military cultural changes and tactical alterations—in terms of defenses, town layout, deployments, etc.—incorporated as a means of adapting to newfound strategic necessities. Furthermore, by examining the transformation occurring within the Roman army both structurally and culturally during this period, and combining historical and archaeological means of investigation, this paper answers how and why the Roman army became increasingly provincial and why this was not a cause of the fall of Rome, but a sustaining force that defended the empire during times of crisis. The Development of Dura-Europos Prior to Roman Occupation Dura-Europos was a settlement situated along the middle of the Euphrates on the borders of the Seleucid and Parthian Empires, and subsequently the Roman and Sassanian Empires after the conquests of the former by the latter in the second and third centuries AD. The city was founded by Macedonian veterans in the 300s BCE who called the settlement Europos; albeit, the largely Aramaic-speaking population labeled the city Dura, or “fortress,” giving the settlement its hyphenated name and alluding to its existence as a crossroads on the liminality of multiple imperial powers throughout antiquity (James 2019, 3). The Seleucids were the ones who invested into the Hellenistic city: creating a Hippodamian street grid outlining a much larger city area than was initially occupied by the veterans, constructing a circuit wall, and rebuilding what has been labeled the Strategeion, or “Redoubt Palace,” on the plateau looking over the city (James 2019, 50). Following these constructions and renovations of the city’s structures, the city is thought to have been absorbed by the Parthian Empire around 113-110 BC in which we see a continued and gradual filling of the city area within the confines of the Hellenistic circuit wall (James 2019, 50). The buildup of the city under Parthian sovereignty did not alter the cultural dynamics of the city, as Miller notes it always maintained a Greek public character (Miller 2006), yet it’s transformation into a regional administrative center shows various cultural markings that indicate the mixed cultural foundations of the city along with the structures of the city, itself. For example, the Agora more closely resembles a Parthian bazaar than that of the traditional Greco-Roman forms seen further West. Thus, certain structural characteristics indicate both the likely chronology of the development of the city; but, more importantly, an indication of some form of cultural interaction and co-existence between its two primary ethnic groups—a Greek elite and a Semitic majority—in which the Semitic majority held greater influence on the architectural forms seen in the material record—housing, sanctuaries, the agora, etc. Another example of such cultural mixing, is the syncretization of Greek deities with those of the Semitic population in concurrence with the presence of a synagogue (James 2019, 50), and various other cult deities which are expanded based on “Babylonian forms” (James 2019, 51), and which Leriche identifies as being central to immigrant communities in Dura of which the largest was that of the Palymrenes (Leriche 2016, 181; Kaizer 2017). Thus, the cultural diversity of Dura-Europos was already firmly established prior to the Roman conquest in which additional cultural interactions would emerge with new syncretizations—the Mithraeum, the Temple of Bel, the Temple of the Roman-Archers—but also Roman military standardizations in regard to the defensive structures brought about through Sassanid Persian aggressions. The Roman Garrison at Dura-Europos The Romans gained sovereignty over Dura-Europos in the middle of the second century AD with the earliest datable textual evidence leaving it within the hands of a garrison of Palmyrene archers in 168 BC as attested by an inscription in the Mithraeum (PR 7/8, 84-85). The Roman military presence in Dura-Europos was tenuous during this period, and it is likely the Palmyrene archers were acting as symmachiarii, or as “allies and proxies for Roman authorities” (James 2019, 244). From this early dating up until the reforms of Severus, there are only minor additions to the Roman garrison; however, the arrival of Cohors II Ulpia in Dura, which an inscription on an altar at the Palmyrene Gate attests to 193 AD (PR 1, 42-44), is one notable addition as it shows a distinguishable and definitive Roman military presence in the city—and is a precursor to the shift in significance that the city would truly enjoy under Severus, Caracalla, and in the Crisis of the Third Century. The Cohors II Ulpia is no longer found in the material record of Dura-Europos after approximately 210 AD, which coincides with the renovations under Septimius Severus, after which it is replaced by Cohors XX Palmyrenorum. Cohors XX Palmyrenorum is first attested in 208 AD from two separate letters; however, it is not until 225 AD that men from the unit are explicitly mentioned at Dura-Europos (James 2019, 307). Nevertheless, based on several letters concerning the placement of detachments within surrounding settlements, it can be reasonably confirmed that the Cohors XX Palmyrenorum was present in Dura following the Severan renovations circa 210 AD. Another interesting distinction concerning the Cohors XX Palmyrenorum is its unique organizational structure and leadership. The Cohors XX was led by a tribune rather than a prefect which would seem to mark it as a milliary as opposed to the expected quingenary, yet there is a lack of textual or epigraphic evidence to support such a designation and the structure of the Cohors—the number of centuries and turmae—is radically different from what would be expected of a milliary (James 2019, 247). James reconciles the various issues with defining the size and designation of the Cohors XX by assuming the centuries and turmae were double strength similar to the organization of the first cohorts of post-Flavian legions, and that this was a change that happened later in the presence of the garrison within the city (James 2019, 247). It can further be inferred that such a doubling is in response to the rise of the Sassanid Persians and their raids across the border. For example, Cohors XX Palmyrenorum had a dromadarii attachment (P. Dura 82 in Campbell 1994), and was itself a unit with roughly equal distribution of centuries and turmae suggesting a need to remain mobile, and adapting to Persian horse archers. Additionally, the doubling of the size of each cohort and turmae would allow for larger detachments to settlements along the Euphrates, and for significantly more populated defenses in the case of a siege at Dura-Europos, itself. While the Cohors arrived at Dura-Europos at an early stage in its development as a Roman settlement, and continually played a significant role in the operations within and surrounding the city, they were not the only troops tasked with garrisoning the city and region. Dura-Europos, as a city within the province of Syria Creole, was afforded vexillations from the provinces two legions—IV Scythica and VXI Flavia Firma—as attested by inscriptions within the Mithraeum dating to its renovation circa 210 AD (PR 7-8, 85). The presence of the vexillation from IV Scythica is continuous after its arrival circa 210 AD, and it is noteworthy that the vexillation becomes connected with the city such that a papyri fragment from 254 AD denotes it as “the local vexillation;” albeit, as James notes, the chronology of occupation drawn from the papyri record is open to interpretation (P. Dura 32; James 2019, 248). The significance of the presence of vexillations at Dura-Europos, the duration and formalization of the garrison, and the implications concerning manpower and unit strength are all relevant to discussions concerning the state of the empire during the Crisis of the Third Century; but, also the shifting strategic goals of the Roman Empire as it entered into Late Antiquity. Firstly, the significance of the consistent presence of two vexillations based out of Dura- Europos signifies its heightened importance as an intermediary city on the liminality of the Roman and Persian empires. The increased garrison at Dura-Europos combined with its increased fortifications signal a concern of late-Parthian and early-Sassanid aggression aimed at the heart of Rome’s territorial possessions in the East—its possessions in the newly created province of Mesopotamia and the city of Antioch in Syria Creole.