Together with Linda Dohmen and Paul Fahr: The fact that no premodern ruler could rule alone is widely accepted in many academic disciplines of historical and cultural studies. In order to maintain their rule over a longer period of time, rulers needed the support of their elites – support which ultimately resulted from these elites’ assent to this rule. Concerning the medieval Frankish-German Empire Bernd Schneidmüller has put this idea of an interwoven relationship between ruler and elites into a nutshell by coining the phrase ‚Rule by Consensus‘ (‘Konsensuale Herrschaft’). In other academic disciplines as well, there is a grown awareness that pyramidical models do not suffice to adequately explain the political practice of pre-modern rulership. However, the elitesʼ assent can occur in various forms and for different reasons in different realms, beyond what the Latin term consensus catches. Thus, the papers in this volume focus on a ubiquitous yet decisive aspect of premodern rule: processes of decision-making and the role consensual ideas and practices played therein from a transcultural perspective. Based on previous research on decision-making and stimulated by the discussions within an interdisciplinary working group, a model of decision-making is set up, according to which the decision-processes may be divided ideal-typically into the following stages: 1) the stage before the actual decision, the phase of ‚deciding‘, 2) the actual ‚decision‘ itself, and 3) the phase of ‚positioning oneself‘ against the decision and its possible consequences. With respect to the surviving sources it often proves challenging to really grasp these phases, as they often form part of political narratives and are modeled along contemporary normative ideals. In this respect, it has to be taken into consideration that the sources themselves are often the result of an act of ‚positioning‘, and that their narratives and choice of words position themselves against the background of their origins. If we do take this into consideration, however, the scrutiny of premodern decision-processes offers new insights into and perspectives on the relationship of rulers and elites in pre-modern times.

Modern imaginations of premodern transitions of power are shaped by the idea of the father-son transition; this is not without reason, as patrilinearity plays a major role in notions of legitimate rule in premodern cultures. However, the etic emphasis on the centrality of rulers’ sons simplifies the complexity of historical realities. While origins serve as a normative argument and means of coping with contingency, in practice, suitability and success also play a central role. Thus, from a transcultural perspective, premodern transitions of power can be located in the tensionfield between norm and practice, rule and recognition, system and reform, and role and person. Against this background, the present volume examines the contemporary handling of such transitions in which the successor was not his predecessor’s son.

Together with Linda Dohmen: No ruler rules alone, but only in association with others. However, according to modern ideas pre-modern realms still seem to be characterized by the formally unlimited power of their rulers with respect to decision-making processes. Therefore, the volume explores ‘consensual’ elements of pre-modern political decision-making processes and offers examples of different manifestations from early imperial China to late medieval France. Who is involved in decision-making, and who makes the actual decision? Finally, the chapters explore ideal concepts of political decision-making processes which served as guidelines to rulers and their elites and to which the sources refer when presenting the actors and their actions.

Modern imaginations of premodern transitions of power from one ruler to another are shaped by the idea of the transition from father to son. This is not without good reason, as the sources give us ample evidence to believe that this was what contemporaries would have considered as the ‘usual’ way of succession. We can hardly deny the fact that the idea of patrilineality played an important role in many, if not most, premodern realms. And while there were times and regions in which the rulers’ sons played only a minor or no role at all in matters of succession, these instances have not been able to fundamentally change the potency of the imagination of the father-son-transition and its significance for modern ideas of premodern notions of ‘legitimate’ rule. However, a dualistic and often etic distinction between the crucial or non-crucial significance of the rulers’ sons simplifies the complexity of historical realities. While on the textual level of the often normative sources one can usually easily identify statements emphasizing the self-evident prerogative of the ruler’s son, there are very few realms in which other relations, such as uncles, brothers, or cousins, and sometimes mothers, wives, sisters, or daughters, did not also succeed a former ruler. Tilmann Trausch, Vom Vater auf den Sohn – oder jemand anderen. ‚Unübliche‘ Formen des Herrschaftsübergangs in transkultureller Perspektive, in Tilmann Trausch (ed.), Norm, Normabweichung und Praxis des Herrschaftsübergangs in transkultureller Perspektive (Macht und Herrschaft 3), Göttingen 2019, 11-59

The objects under investigation in this volume are premodern transitions of power of a particular kind: transitions that were not just recorded, in words or images, by contemporaries, but those that such contemporaries felt a need to explain and to classify. This appears to have been the case when a transition of power deviated, for whatever reason, from the ‘usual’, the ‘imaginary norm’ in its socio-political context. The contributors to this volume have defined as ‘imaginary norm’ a transition from father to son. In doing so, they are of course aware that any transition was an inevitable and critical moment of upheaval, or at best of change, in any autocracy; and that all transitions required extra efforts at mediation. Even in a smooth dynastic handover the successor had to obtain acceptance. The crucial difference is that this form of succession required much less justification. Although individual chapters investigate case studies from different points in time, space and culture – the greatest deviation from the ‘imaginary norm’ is probably the Mamluk concept of Herrschaft in chapter 5 – they all share numerous similarities and overlaps, even those that were not connected through a contact zone. In the introduction, Tilmann Trausch described one of the basic assumptions of the authors in this volume: we think of the ‘imaginary norm’ as a reaction pattern to challenges that share basic similarities.

See also: https://www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com/themen-entdecken/geschichte/geschichte-des-mittelalters/55002/norm-normabweichung-und-praxis-des-herrschaftsuebergangs-in-transkultureller-perspektive Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī finished his extensive universal history around 1260. Named after and officially dedicated to the ruling sultan of Delhi, Nāṣir al-Dīn Maḥmūd Shāh (r. 1246–1266), the work covers the history of the eastern Islamicate world from its early beginnings until the author’s time. Focusing on Central Asia and India, and especially on the Delhi Sultanate, it follows a distinct textual structure derived from the Persianate historiographical tradition of Greater Khorasan. As such, fixed sets of personal virtues and behaviors are ascribed to sultans and their dignitaries in order to sustain a normative hierarchy and to legitimize their rule (Herrschaft). This leads to considerable eulogies, especially when depicting the sultan of the age. However, in his work, Jūzjānī does not only highlight Nāṣir al-Dīn, but also equates him on a textual level with his foremost malik and former slave Ghiyās̱ al-Dīn Balban (r. 1266–1287, named Ulugh Khān before his accession), who later succeeded him and created a new dynasty. Despite a potential anachronism, this led past researchers to repeatedly ask whether Balban might have already ascended the throne when Jūzjānī finished his work. Instead of looking to historical circumstances, one can find the reason for this ongoing debate on a literary level: In contrast to other maliks, the striking depiction of Balban is equated with the ideal of a perfect sultan on so many levels that one is left wondering about his actual position in the reign of Sultan Nāṣir al-Dīn. Why did Jūzjānī choose this seemingly problematic way of presenting Balban? This article pursues a literary approach in order to argue that Jūzjānī might have intentionally depicted Balban as a person of ideal abilities so that his later ascension to the throne could be legitimized in advance. It examines how the ascription of personal virtues and behaviors could establish a ruler’s suitability, focusing particularly on Balban, who could not draw on descent or designation to justify his claims. Further, it asks which narrative strategies Jūzjānī used in order to depict Balban as the perfectly-qualified successor of Nāṣir al-Dīn. This leads to a better understanding of one of the most important sources on the early Delhi Sultanate that has often been read for its historical value only.

This article uses the historio-linguistic database »Nomen et gens« (NeG) to investigate the interpretation of early medieval names as historical sources via the case study of the so called »Anglo-Saxon mission« .

A brief look at the culture and practices of giving and taking advice in Seljuq Iran.

Wissenszirkulation Neue Zugänge zur Geschichte des Wissens in Stefan Rohdewald, Stephan Conermann, Albrecht Fuess Transottomanica – Osteuropäisch-osmanisch-persische Mobilitätsdynamiken Perspektiven und Forschungsstand