Students often happen to accept and transmit absurd information that, in turn, is believed on their authority. Al Mas'udi, for instance, reports such a story about Alexander. Sea monsters prevented Alexander from building Alexandria. He took a wooden container in which a glass box was inserted, and dived in it to the bottom of the sea. There he drew pictures of the devilish monsters he saw. He then had metal effigies of these animals made and set them up opposite the place where building was going on. When the monsters came out and saw the effigies, they fled. Alexander was thus able to complete the building of Alexandria.
It is a long story, made up of nonsensical elements which are absurd for various reasons. Thus, (Alexander is said) to have taken a glass box and braved the sea and its waves in person. Now, rulers would not take such a risk. Any ruler who would attempt such a thing would work his own undoing and provoke the outbreak of revolt against himself, and (he would) be replaced by the people with someone else. That would be his end. People would not (even) wait one moment for him to return from the (dangerous) risk he is taking.--Al-Khaldun The Muqadimmah (translated by F. Rosenthal), Book 1.
In context (recall), Ibn Khaldun is explaining how to evaluate historical evidence and what principles to bear on source criticism. He goes on to ridicule the mechanism by which the sea monsters are scared away. He also denies it would have been physiologically possible for Alexander to have survived the journey into the deep. But his main argument to reject the story centers, as the quoted passage reveals, on the nature of leadership.
Throughout (recall) the Muqadimmah, Ibn Khaldun is clear that group feeling can be shaped and controlled by political leaders and it also facilitates their authority and rule. The quoted passage is an important element of this overall argument. For it shows that leaders are constrained by people's expectations on the nature of leadership. Ibn Khaldun treats some of these expectations as ubiquitous. Certain violations of these expectations undermine a leader's authority.
For example, Ibn Khaldun is clear that (excessive) and unnecessary individual risk-taking by the leader himself would be self-undermining. Unfortunately, Ibn Khaldun does not explain why. But we can infer that this would apparently not be viewed as a species of courage, but rather as a species of irresponsibility. That is to say, Ibn Khaldun assumes we ordinarily assume two features of leadership: (i) that leaders wish to preserve their own life and rule. And (ii) if dangers can be delegated down they will be so delegated.
There is a more important point lurking in Ibn Khaldun's example. That leadership ultimately rests on the opinion of those (the people) ruled. (He echoes here the idea that rulership/kingship among Muslims ought to be elective kingship.) By "the people," Ibn Khaldun means, in context, the (propertied) soldiers, that is, those that can afford retainers/retinue. And this good opinion can be withheld effectively ("revolt").
So, if one looses the good opinion of the soldiers by acting in violation of their universal expectations on good leadership one forfeits one's ruler-ship. Ibn Khaldun treats this as a very robust historical generalization ("any"). So much so that any historical text that would present evidence to the contrary should, if not be rejected outright as spurious, at least be treated very warily.
Comments