You keep considering HRE a title instead of a political entity and you only want to consider its history from the Hapsburg or the Reform but it really starts with Charlemagne. The German vassals gradually obtained many liberty, but in the beginning they would pay taxes and the Emperor could ask them to mobilize their armies. That's what is called an empire, and it lasted more than 200 years. Why would Northern italian cities rebel and form the Lombard League if they were only ruled by a nominal Emperor who only detained a title with no power whatsoever ? And whom did Frederick Barbarossa bring along in Italy to quell the rebellion if he had no power on the german vassals ?
Since before Charlemagne the german vassals were electing the German King, and after the HRE title started to be awarded by the Pope, the Emperor was ALSO considered German King. The German provinces although much more independent (and let me stress once more that this is a GRADUAL process over the course of centuries) than their French or English counterparts were still a single nation. The HRE has been the main power with the Papal States in Europe for pretty much the whole Middle Age, they were called the 2 Universal Powers, and yet you think that HRE is only a title like Marquis of Saluce.
Do you have a problem with my calculations? Are there other Holy Roman Emperors you wish to count as German? Because if not, my number stands. Only ~200 years during which a German was HRE. (It should probably be pointed out that those ~200 years are spread over about 350 years, as there are frequent gaps, often substantial, when there was no Holy Roman Emperor).
I agree, Germany was a nation. That nation was the Kingdom of Germany. That it was often part of the Holy Roman Empire (which included territories beyond Germany) is irrelevant to its identity as a nation/political entity.
Before Charlemagne there was no Germany, and no king thereof. There was Austrasia (which together with the rest of the Frankish kingdoms was governed primarily by... i'm forgetting the right word - effectively an administrator for the Merovingian king - until Pepin the Short had his family made king in law as well as fact (starting the Carolingian Dynasty) with the approval of the pope. (Obviously the Merovingian kings had real power at one point, but by the time of Charles Martel - Pepin's father - it was the administrator who had all the real power). Following this we have Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious who ruled all France, much of Germany, and all of N. Italy. Then we have a series of Carolingian rulers in West, East, and Middle Francia (including N. Italy), and the HRE title basically ends up in Middle Francia/N. Italy until the Ottonians replace the Carolingians as King of Germany. The election of kings really dates to the end of the Carolingian Dynasty in Germany. From Otto I until the Habsburgs become dominant, there are ~207 years during which the German King is also Holy Roman Emperor. (While the Habsburgs are often "German King", they are more of a dominant foreign power - as we have an Austrian civ, it would be far better represented as Austria vassalizing 'Germany' than anything else).
For completeness:
Holy Roman Emperors before Otto I:
Charlemagne (King of All Franks, used Imperator Augustus as imperial title)
Louis I the Pious (King of All Franks, Imperator Augustus)
Lothair I (King of Italy, King of Middle Francia, Imperator Augustus)
Louis II (King of Italy, Imperator Augustus)
Charles II (King of West Francia, Imperator Augustus)
Charles III (in order aquired: King of Alemannia, Italy, East Francia, West Francia, -> All Franks. Became Imperator Augustus after becoming King of Italy)
Guy III of Spoleto (Margrave of Camerino -> Duke of Spoleto and Camerino -> "King of Italy" at least on paper, Imperator Augustus)
Lambert II of Spoleto (as Guy)
Arnulf of Carinthia (East Francia, Imperator Augustus)
I suppose if you really wanted to you could count him as German - add 3 years!
Louis III (King of Provence, King of Italy, Imperator Augustus)
Berengar of Friuli (Margrave of Friuli, "King of Italy", Imperator Augustus)
Otto I (covered already)
Note that you could maybe add 3 years to the number of years a German was HRE. Those who were King of All Franks were not merely German, and I think we can all agree that bundling basically all of western Europe into one civ is a bad idea.
Wikipaedia even has the following to say about the title during the reign of Guy III of Spoleto:
"Guy's power never extended over much hereditary lands, which offered stark illustration of the fact that the imperial title, with its pretensions of universal rule, had by the end of the ninth century become merely a token of the pope's favour, to be fought over by various Italian nobles. He did not even firmly control the north of Italy, battling other claimants over the throne for much of his reign."
Note that its nature as a token of the Pope's favor would remain into the period when it belonged to German monarchs, which is why the term Holy Roman Emperor was erected in the first place (to make a claim to authority independent of the papacy).
That's why I think you should take a bit more in consideration the opinions of europeans about european history.
I would rather take into consideration _history_ rather than people's opinions thereof. Ultimately its going to come down to opinion at some point, but historical evidence should be the dominant arbiter. (In this case, even a cursory investigation - ie wikipaedia - reveals the true nature of the imperial title).
This said, I think it makes perfectly sense having HRE and Pope (or better Pope Controller as other games do) as game mechanics; what does NOT make sense is separating Germany, calling Austrasia and Neustria different civs (they were kingdoms/duchies of one civ: the Franks), East Francia, West Francia... man, these are provinces not civs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "separating Germany". We need a German civ of some sort.
Austrasia and Neustria were both kingdoms within Clovis's "empire", and were frequently independent of each other during the reign of the Merovingians. (Notably, the tradition of splitting one's kingdom among ones children meant that they were independent immediately after Clovis's death). It makes perfect sense to treat them distinctly.
Similarly, East and West Francia were also kingdoms within Charlemagne's empire, and would be ruled as separate kingdoms from Charles II on (840AD), even when they were united under one ruler (Charles III).
To call either of those sets provinces of a larger kingdom ignores historical fact and gives more weight to the shorter duration but better known reigns of Charlemagne and Clovis I than the longer time between those reigns when they were generally independent of each other. (Those kings are of course better known because they conquered/ruled multiple kingdoms, go figure). It also ignores that those entities were called Kingdoms by their contemporaries, and were sub-ruled by kings under those over-kings. And when there weren't over-kings (and sometimes even when there were) they were frequently at war with each other.
The Franks became the French and (at least some of) the Germans, as well as the Dutch. In the context of 500-1800, they really are multiple civs. Unless of course you think France, Germany, and the Low Countries are really the same civ.
.
