Dan Jones wrote:

> I can't see any way of avoiding the French Revolution at that time. I know
> quite a bit about French history and the Revolution was something of an
> inevitability.

I agree.  However, its course may have run differently without the conscious
example and precedent of the American Revolution, since there was none ---
only a tax revolt.

> The easiest changes to make in history are those which hinge
> on one person, Napoleon for example. Since France *there* is ruled by a
> first consul, I assume that Napoleon came to power,

He did.

> Besides, an independent Provence is a really cool idea.

I was just thinking of a unified, but less dirigiste, France.  Still, I have
no objections to Occitan political autonomy as well as cultural-linguistic.

> I presume
> that much of this was contrived to avoid the invention of decimalisation?

The nature of Ill Bethisad is that empire (defined as an association of peoples
under a common government, of which one tends to be primus inter pares, but
each keeping their own laws, language, and culture) gets a much earlier start.
Kemr, for example, doesn't try to force uniformity on the very different Kerno;
the F.K. is nothing like the centralizing U.K.; the North American League
is multicultural (English, Scots, Brithenig, German) from day one.

There is / one art                   || John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
no more / no less                    ||
to do / all things                   ||
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein