Question about Roman subjugation area

[Kongeslask]

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?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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.

[blacksnail]

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

[Kongeslask]

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.

[Pharnakes]

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.

[Watchman]

"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.

[Captian Cornelius]

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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.

[blacksnail]

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."

[Sakkura]

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.

[Foot]

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

[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.