It's a waste of time to accuse anyone of HRE - phobia or - philia. We all know there is like gazillion more interesting and enjoyable things than getting certain civ in or out. But every time I see a similar argument it almost always boils down to a "deserves or not" stage. Or "it's fun to have more civs" vs. "it's fun to have a distinct civs" stage. Kinda amazing how we all like to wander in spiritual and metaphysical "deserving a place in computer game" land or repeating obvious truths to no particular end. The point is, HRE (with "Native Americans") has nothing in common with other Civs in terms of being a "civilization" in any meaning of this word, while it's being used as any other. And what confuses me to no end is seeing endless stream of statements trying to prove otherwise using arguments from this spiritual land or "it's fun or it's not" dilemma.
Sure, we can argue "it's been around for so long", but what exactly can it prove? That the ideas can die extremely old and deformed? Arguing that Charlemagne was the creator of this "civ" leads nowhere, unless you are really convinced a few empty gestures towards Roman heritage can replace the lack of
any other common ground. It's similar to Napoleon forcing electors to choose him Holy Roman Emperor - would it automatically create a new argument for HRE distinctiveness and importance? Same goes for Hapsburgs - they held Emperor title for so long
because they managed to gather such power, not the other way around, it was just a token of importance, one more shiny stone in crown. Oh, sure, HRE consisted of many nations and many states - but so was Holy Alliance (emperor is missing, rest is mostly the same in terms of "idea over matter"
), so is EU, and Soviet Union was way, way more complex, with powerful central government, unique regime and ideology (in their times) and get what? Stalin of Russia?? Don't let anyone start about Great Britain, they got under the rug the same way... And regarding "Mercia or Wessex" argument - we can have Germany (instead of Mercia) and France (instead of Wessex), but try to look for HRE in a shape even slightly appropriate to (any) England. Good luck.
Compared to it, Byzantines with their unique architecture, state-defining constant religion flux and
greco-roman culture are the exact opposite. Calling them an "argument for HRE" is comparable to calling them "Romans". They endorsed
the idea of being Rome's direct descendants despite obvious flaws in such statement - while HRE was
just the idea of new Rome and not much more. I fail to understand those "overlapping arguments" - we have Celts, romans, France and England, because we can easily describe unique culture and civilization achievements. What do you want to describe in HRE? Some legitimacy issues and one more title to rule over Medieval Germany and additional countries from time to time, after a conquest/threats as anywhere else? Bavarian, Bohemian or Burgundian culture with no common denominator? At least in Austro-Hungary period we don't even need to mention "HRE", because strong state managed to act like such denominator.
HRE as institution functioned way more like Apostolic Palace crossed with UN (if we call it Few United Nations) in terms of game mechanics and it might be involved in Civ in such form. I could get used to the concept of secular AP with stronger accents on military and ie. fighting money gains of foreign shrine from my cities or perhaps serving as a countermeasure to real AP. Seeing how many of those stronger "holy emperors" wasted most of their "empire" on quarrels with pope this could prove interesting. And seeing how Europa Universalis dealt with this problem can give you some ideas. But instead of something else, it was given (imaginary) ruler, (imaginary) own administration and (even more imaginary) own culture to act like a thing it never was. That's the problem for me. Though I have a feeling I can live with it
And I'm not even arguing for USSR inclusion - it's more like pointing out that more distinct civs got merged with Russia or England. So what's the excuse of HRE? Longevity only? Because I'm not falling for "an era in western civilization" - still more like "an era" than a "civilization".
); Civ has no trait focused on diversity - and A-H was indeed full of different religions, nationalities, languages, traditions and animosities. Not like the HRE, which preferred Germans/Austrians and catholicism (since Luter there's hardly a real HRE outside of Hapsburg domain).
I was replying to two posts at once and only quoting one but this is what Astax said...