I don't know enough to weigh in on this one, other than to know that if Napoleon and married the Russian princess and invaded Austria instead the world would be a very different place, but Austrian royalty was considered much grander. But that was after the time frame you guys are discussing. But it is not necessary to fight a war for two countries to check eachother's power and expansion, look at America and the Soviet Union for 45 years.
As a matter of popular perception, which is probably what counts to Sid's team, I think Austrian history is considered much more glorious & imperial. I bet that's what guides inclusion in Civ, regardless of actual historical accomplishments.
It is good that you said "as a matter of popular perception".
I think the main problem with history is that is seen from different, particular points of view. Thats why Poland is not recognizable for western audience: when it was in union with Lithuania one of largest (if not largest) europeans powers, it was simply involved in the eastern politics and had no direct impact on any country from the western culture group.
Jagiellon dynasty had more possessions than Habsburgs before battle of Mohacs 1526 yr, and bigger military power at their hands. Nevertheless, HRE and Habsburgs were a part of history of almost all countries to the west of river Oder - and we were the great absentee.
At the other hand, when Poland finally appeared in the western common history, we were under decline of our power and we were then just object of politics for other countries, not its independent subject.
Unluckily for us, it was the most recent history (and today's 5-minute fame is always more important than a whole year ten years ago).
Moreover, we had terrible publicity - countries taking part in partitioning of Poland did anything they could to prove we deserved such a fate. History is written by victorious - and so it was written by our occupants throughout the entire XIX cnt. This version is a dominant one.
Thats why we almost dont exist in most popular imagination of common history. I can understand this, but not agree with.
About Austria itself - their standalone (apart from HRE) history started in 1699, and lasted till 1918. During that time they never managed to reach power comparable to potential of former Polish-Lithuanin Commonwealth, however they were active political player (that makes an impression of glorious and imperial history - we can hear about them a lot, even if they were mostly uneffective). Maybe thats why, being almost as much weak as PLC, they could benefit from Partitions of Poland (which were in fact a work of Frederic and Catherine, indisputable powers that time).
They were even beaten in 1809 by army of Napoleon-created satellite country made of Poland's left-overs (so called Duchy of Warsaw) - and we were really weak then, you can belive me.