The splendour of ‘centralised power’ has long fascinated historical research. The more strongly and autocratically a ruler managed to rule his subjects, the more his polity and policy making were praised as being modern. As a consequence, the complex structure of the Roman Empire in Central Europe was conceived as doomed to fail, while the strong monarchies in late-medieval Western Europe were regarded as forerunners of the modern nation-states. This bias has vanished after twentieth-century attempts in Germany and other countries to overcome ‘rule by consensus’ through individuals’ effective leadership. In the Middle East, the motif of ‘centralised power’ prevailed as well, obscuring the fact that the ruler was not only above his followers and the lynchpin of government, but also at their mercy. Where nomadic rulers, and with them the Turko-Mongol concept that territory was held collectively by the patriarchal, agnatic clan, and slave dynasties of non-Muslim origin increasingly presided over a sedentary and indigene population, consensus was inevitable. In addition, the modern-day European integration process and the work of supra-national institutions rendered the value of the tiresome business of decision-making between equals evident, while the ‘centralised power’ of the traditional autocrats of the Arabic world has crumbled only very recently.

Thus, the assessment of power and governance in the pre-modern past has transformed. The participation of peers in power waging and decision making is no longer seen as an obstacle towards modernisation, but as a distinct way of integrating and steering a political entity. During the last decade, historical research in many parts of the world has employed this particular approach to political history. The ‘From Command to Consent’ workshop plans to elevate this question to a global level and invites scholars of various regions in Eurasia to discuss the issue comparatively.