Question about Roman subjugation area

I have noticed that the SPQR is allowed Type II government in certain areas which they historically never controlled, like Jutland (Gawjam-Kimbroz) and latter-day Prussia. They are also allowed to "subjugate" Mesopotamia, which historically they controlled only briefly, in the time of Trajan if I remember correctly. Yet in Persia proper, there are only "alliances available". Given that the seleukids have "subjugation available" in most of Persia (and even a homeland province in Persepolis), and that historically the romans were the ones that were most skilled at exporting their form of government to conquered areas, it does seem at least plausible that they would be able to romanise the desirable areas of Persia to a similar degree as Greece, Egypt and the Levant if they had managed to properly secure the area. It actually seems more likely that they would attempt that with Persia than with some undesirable (to the Romans at least) baltic province. What was the rationale behind giving the romans the option of Type II government in some areas where it is unhistorical (and also implausible), but not in others?

If Varus hadn't been such and idiot and Arminius hadn't had such a good ambush plan, then the Romans would have held onto a chunch of Germania. And if they hadn't lost at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the Romans wouldn't have given up on Germania. Just like Gaul, if they timed an attack right, Germania would have become part of the Roman Empire.

The Type2s for Rome used to go all the way to India (v0.74), but they were reduced because Rome had much more Subjugation areas than any other faction. Persia was reduced to Alliances.

Expansion is not necessarily "where they went," but instead "where they wanted to go."

They did not want to go to the baltic (their campaigns against the germans were limited to the area between the Rhein and the Elbe, as far as I know). I am assuming the southwestern part of Persia, that is to say Persepolis and the provinces immediately surronding it were so rich and developed that the romans would have wanted to incorporate it into their realm if they could properly secure it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Expansion is not necessarily "where they went," but instead "where they wanted to go."

---

But by that logic, the sucessor states should have the whole world, that was Alexanders dream afterall, and they at least claimed to be following it.

"The whole world" is a relative concept though. I rather suspect the Hellenistic take on the it did not actually include stuff too far north of the Med, since far as they were concerned that was pretty much cold backwoods full of nasty trouser-wearing savages.

Not worthy of their august attentions you know ?

Why the steppes and deserts would be Right Out should also be fairly obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Expansion is not necessarily "where they went," but instead "where they wanted to go."

---

Or perhaps "where they could have gone if things had turned out differently". This is a what-if mod after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sakkura

Or perhaps "where they could have gone if things had turned out differently". This is a what-if mod after all.

---

But we don't just do any what if. They did subjugate many German tribes, but they were never able to subjugate any Persian lands. I imagine that this is the thought behind the placement of subjugation precursors.

Foot

Exactly, the areas represent what the Romans considered the natural limts of their empire. Augustus' plans to Romanize the germans are well known, for example. If Teutoburg had gone differently, Germania would have been as Romanized as Gaul in the 1st century AD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

But by that logic, the sucessor states should have the whole world, that was Alexanders dream afterall, and they at least claimed to be following it.

---

Well according to them he had the 'whole world' aside from italy.

It also varies by faction depending upon that faction's ability historically to "romanize" or "hellenize" or "punicize" or whatever. If they had difficulty exporting their culture abroad into new lands then that will probably be reflected in some way in their gov2 precursors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Exactly, the areas represent what the Romans considered the natural limts of their empire. Augustus' plans to Romanize the germans are well known, for example. If Teutoburg had gone differently, Germania would have been as Romanized as Gaul in the 1st century AD.

---

Arent you overemphasizing the significance of this battle?

Dont forget that the highest concentration of roman legions were kept on the Rhine-border.

I dont think so. Teutoburg was the disaster that caused Augustus to change his mind and set Roman borders at the river. Prior to that he has plans to fully Romanize the Germanics. Think of it, the course of history might have been changed. The Roman empire preserved from ruin, Christ dying unremembered on a lonely cross, the non-appearance of the English language, etc.

"Planning to" and "able to realize" are completely different things you know.

Another thing is the fact that even if they did go through with a campaign to conquer Magna Germania, the relative unattractiveness of the land would make it less desirable for roman colonisation than the areas along the "Rhenus". It seems likely that they would go for looser control, which in EB can be represented by limiting those areas to "alliances available".

Another thing is that if we are to consider what the romans would consider the natural limits of their domains, it seems a bit strange that Britannia is "subjugation available" while Hibernia is "alliances available". It is just a short sea journey from Britannia, and probably would not be more difficult to annex and romanise than Britannia was, assuming the romans had desired to do so.

I'm also somewhat dubious if the German lands could actually have supported the presence of the frontier/garrison armies required. This was, after all, well over a millenia before the advent of the heavy swing-plough which pretty much revolutionized Northern European agriculture by allowing the exploitation of the fertile heavy clay soil areas.

well what i wanna know is why the area around carthage is 100% desert cuz i heard somewhere a while ago where they found aqueducts and highways in the northernmost part of where the Sahara is today because it was a fertile area and the romans used it until the desert grew over top there abondened citys after the fall of the romans in that area :balloon2:

EDIT: sorry about it being off topic.. i was just wondering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pockettank

well what i wanna know is why the area around carthage is 100% desert cuz i heard somewhere a while ago where they found aqueducts and highways in the northernmost part of where the Sahara is today because it was a fertile area and the romans used it until the desert grew over top there abondened citys after the fall of the romans in that area :balloon2:

EDIT: sorry about it being off topic.. i was just wondering

---

It isn't all desert AFAIK. Wherever your armies can move are certainly not desert because that was pretty much off-limits for armies in antiquity.

@Watchman: Is German soil really much harder than, say Belgian or English to work? We know the Romans did fine there. (That's actually a serious question, I'm not using rhetorical questions or anything)

The type II governments don't just mean "What they conquered" or "What they nearly conquered". If that was the case, how would Epirus have ANY, since they died out around 270 BC? We need to improvise a little or factions that remained static (Ex- Saba, Armenia, Seleukids, Makedonia, etc) wouldn't have ANY outside their basic homeland area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

But by that logic, the sucessor states should have the whole world, that was Alexanders dream afterall, and they at least claimed to be following it.

---

You're attaching far too much literal importance to a one-off comment I made in referring to the spirit of the Expansion regions. I'm not a historian, nor am I interested in a debate over semantics. If I have caused more confusion on their purpose than I have cleared up, then I'll kindly retract my comment and leave it to the team historians to discuss in depth.

EDIT: Read in the wrong context this will come across as harsh, which is not at all my intent. I'm saying "that's not what I meant" not "you suck, dude." ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

@Watchman: Is German soil really much harder than, say Belgian or English to work? We know the Romans did fine there. (That's actually a serious question, I'm not using rhetorical questions or anything)

---

Far as I know the Celts pretty much made a point of nicking all the good farmland around there back in the day. (Or Celtic culture spread onto such regions, however that now went.) The British Celts and Belgae were AFAIK quite clearly noticeably more wealthy than the Germans on the average, which in turn suggests their lands were of the type that yielded good harvest with the tools and means of the time, which in turn the Romans had no technological problems making use of.

The Germans were left with the northern woodlands not nearly as well suited for agriculture, partly AFAIK just because lot of them were of the heavy clay-soil type the light plows of the period flat out didn't make much of an impression on. Ergo, sparse habitation and reliance on largely ecologically self-sufficient tribal levies as there simply wasn't enough of a surplus to maintain a specialist warrior class in the Celtic fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

The type II governments don't just mean "What they conquered" or "What they nearly conquered". If that was the case, how would Epirus have ANY, since they died out around 270 BC? We need to improvise a little or factions that remained static (Ex- Saba, Armenia, Seleukids, Makedonia, etc) wouldn't have ANY outside their basic homeland area.

---

The way I understood it is those areas are the ones that were or could have been conquered and in some way incorporated into the realm for longer periods. So a Hellenic faction would have been able to incorporate basically all the areas of the Diadochoi, other places with Greek settlements and perhaps some other areas with peoples they had some proper way of incorporating.

The Romans just make it a little easier to "guess" which people they might have been able to incorporate by having historically done it to such a huge area.

@ Watchman- Excellent point. Besides, I just now remembered that passage from Caesar about how much wealthier the Gauls were from trade/better land, which made them more civilized, while the Germans were real savages, living off hunting at subsistance level. Probably untrue, but reveals that there must have been a rather large wealth disparity between Gaul and Germany.
Learning is cool! :book:


All that said, I still think the Romans had a decent shot at occupying Germania successfully.

If the actual inhabitants of the place could barely support themselves, I find it somewhat difficult to see how you could maintain a standing army there more or less permanently. If the region itself could not produce the surplus food (and sundry other necessities) required those would have to be hauled in from somewhere else - and land transport of bulk consumables like grain was just plain Right Out over any real distance.

Coastal regions are another issue, especially if there's a river, as sea transport was viable. It'd obviously have been largely out of question for much of the Germanic hinterland, but as I understand it the Romans were chiefly interested in the northern coastal regions near Denmark - doubtless hoping to get their greedy mitts directly on the Baltic seatrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I dont think so. Teutoburg was the disaster that caused Augustus to change his mind and set Roman borders at the river. Prior to that he has plans to fully Romanize the Germanics. Think of it, the course of history might have been changed. The Roman empire preserved from ruin, Christ dying unremembered on a lonely cross, the non-appearance of the English language, etc.

---

I‘m a bit confused as to how the conquest of Germania would have stoped the spread of christianty. Care to explain that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captian Cornelius

I‘m a bit confused as to how the conquest of Germania would have stoped the spread of christianty. Care to explain that?

---

I think he's saying that it would have made the Roman Empire stronger and more Confident in themselves and would have done better in other areas also and probly wouldnt have caused unrest due to the hatred of the Germans and other barbians religouns cuz they wouldnt be there any more thus Roman religon ruling supreme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captian Cornelius

I‘m a bit confused as to how the conquest of Germania would have stoped the spread of christianty. Care to explain that?

---

Yeah, that confused me too. I don't see any relationship between early Christianity and Germania. Sure, the Catholic Church wouldn't have become powerful in the power vacuum after the Germans invaded. But, Christianity was nearly taking over before any Germanians had any effect on the Roman Empire. And I don't see how holding Germania would have stopped that, in the east.

And Roman religion wasn't all that strong to begin with. In the east (where Christianity began), most of the people still followed Greek gods, and some Zoroastrianism. There was even a small Jewish population spread across the eastern Roman Empire that served as a base for early Christianity's spreading.

idk that was just my guess at what he meant but oh well its all i could think of to help him :sweatdrop: oh well lol :wall: :whip: