01-08-2013, 03:18 PM
Quote:.......
Alae sociorum would vary from the same size as the legions to being half again as large as the legions. The Romans may have grouped the socii together, so that each group would be responsible for raising 2 centuries of hastati, 2 centuries of principes, etc. But if so, they must have grouped them differently when the alae sociorum were the same size and when the alae sociorum were larger.
Polybius' description of the Roman camp makes more sense if the alae sociorum were the same size as the legiones. If the extraordinarii were formed of two centuries of hastati, 2 of principes, and 1 of triarii - assuming the velites were divided among these centuries - then the alignment of the camp gets thrown off. If the extraordinarii were organized like the triarii, then the alignment fits, although there are still some unclear bits..........
The theoretical size & shape of the Socii Legions (re Polybius) seems to be identical to that of the Roman ones in terms of the infantry and it is only the cavalry contingent that is 3x larger; with the caveat that later it is explained that the Socii infantry element is supplemented by the 'in extremis' additional 800 element most of the time.
When it comes to the camp, however, it is the 'standard' size that is referred to and indeed the camp then becomes completely regular. For as one-fifth of the infantry (10 centuries each Socii legion) and one-third of the cavalry is taken off for the Extraordinarii then the tent spaces of the lost infantry can be perfectly filled by the remaining extra cavalry.
The Polybian camp does seem to meet nearly all the requirements of the playing card shape and a direct pre-cursor of the later fortresses. What has puzzled me is how the 'Hyginus' and possibly the Later Byzantine shapes came about, for they make much less sense.