The Economist: Is the EU the Holy Roman Empire 2.0?

A thought-provoking historical perspective on the current economic and political situation in the EU:
http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568659-old-empire-offers-surprising-lessons-european-union-today-european-disunion-done

Several such entities have been attempted in Europe through its long history, from the classical Roman Empire to today's European Union. Though the continent derives some unity from its vaunted Greco-Roman roots, it contains a great deal of diversity in terms of language, ethnicity, culture -- all the necessary components of national identity. There are, in fact, a number of key differences (some articulated in the above article, some not) between the current EU and comparable historical entities (interestingly, they all begin with 'c'). Here's my (history buff's) perspective (it's longer than usual, so I've put it under the cut):

Today

is the 484th anniversary of the Sack of Rome. Since there have been multiple Sacks of Rome (makes Rome sound a bit like potatoes?), I'm referring to the one where Charles V's troops ran amok after the death of their commander Duke Charles and pillaged Rome. (Duke Charles III and Charles V were not the same person; Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor and Charles III was the Duke of Bourbon.) His second-in-command (sort of) Philibert de Châlon, Prince of Orange, was a bit of a wet blanket, and nobody listened to him, so there was no one to prevent the troops from doing as they pleased. Not to mention that Charles V, while outwardly condemning the lawlessness of his men, actually stood to benefit greatly from the Sack of Rome, as it put Pope Clement VII under Hapsburg control -- so I would imagine that Charles V didn't do much in the way of preventing the Sack.

Edit: I realize, upon re-reading it a day later, that this post is rather incoherent. I blame lack of sleep...