Fresque du monastère de Ghélati
Saint David le Bâtisseur (+1130)
L'Eglise latine le fête, dans
son martyrologe, le 24 janvier et les Eglises d'Orient ce 26 janvier. Il était
roi d'Ibérie, c'est-à-dire la Géorgie intérieure et roi d'Abkhazie, région
maritime qui connut très tôt des communautés chrétiennes. David multiplia les
monastères qui furent des foyers culturels importants, conservant la tradition
d'Antioche, multipliant les manuscrits, transmettant les Pères de langue
syriaque. Saint David est l'un des plus grands rois de la Géorgie. Il mourut au
monastère de Guelati qui renaît depuis quelques années après avoir été détruit
durant l'occupation soviétique.
(Le roi David III, en Géorgie dans le Caucase, a donné à son peuple le
témoignage d'une foi intense, d'un grand amour de la justice et d'un grand
courage contre les ennemis perses. Il édifia le célèbre monastère de Guélati où
il finit ses jours.)
SOURCE : http://www.paroisse-saint-aygulf.fr/index.php/prieres-et-liturgie/saints-par-mois/icalrepeat.detail/2015/01/24/12590/-/saint-david-le-batisseur-1130
Saint David le Bâtisseur
roi
en Géorgie (✝ 1125)
(Le roi David IV, en Géorgie dans le Caucase, a donné à son peuple le témoignage d'une foi intense, d'un grand amour de la justice et d'un grand courage contre les ennemis perses. Il édifia le célèbre monastère de Guélati où il finit ses jours.)
Guelati, centre scientifique et d’enseignement, a été fondé par David le Constructeur, l’un des plus grands rois de Géorgie et il a été considéré comme 'Nouvel Athos' et 'Nouvelle Jérusalem'. Le fondateur est enterré dans le monastère, non loin de la grande cathédrale principale de la Sainte-Vierge, dont la mosaïque exceptionnelle est sans doute le chef d'œuvre de l’art sacré en Géorgie. (site faisant partie du patrimoine culturel de l'Unesco)
Blessed David IV the King of Georgia
The Seljuk sultan, Jalal al-Dawlah Malik Shah (1073-1092), captured the village of Samshvilde, imprisoned its leader, Ioane Orbeliani, son of Liparit, ravaged Kvemo (Lower) Kartli, and finally captured all of Georgia, despite the isolated victories of King Giorgi II (1072-1089). The fearful Georgians fled their homes to hide in the mountains and forests.
Tempted and deeply distressed by the difficult times, the nation that had once vowed its unconditional love for Christ began to fall into sin and corruption. People of all ages and temperaments sinned against God and turned to the path of perdition. God manifested His wrath toward the Georgian people by sending a terrible earthquake that devastated their Paschal celebrations.
In the year 1089, during this period of devastation and despair, King Giorgi II abdicated, designating his sixteen-year-old only son, Davit (later known as “the Restorer”), heir to the throne. It is written that the Heavenly Father said: I have found David My servant, with My holy oil have I annointed him (Ps. 88:19).
The newly crowned King Davit took upon himself enormous responsibility for the welfare of the Church. He supported the efforts of the Council of Ruisi-Urbnisi to restore and reinforce the authority of the Georgian Church and suppress the conceited feudal lords and unworthy clergymen. During King Davit’s reign, the government’s most significant activities were carried out for the benefit of the Church. At the same time, the Council of Ruisi-Urbnisi reasserted the vital role of the Orthodox Faith in rescuing the Georgian people from the godless mire into which they had sunk.
Foremost among King Davit’s goals at the beginning of his reign was the repatriation of those who had fled Georgia during the Turkish rule. The king summoned his noblemen and began to reunify the nation. The king’s efforts to reunify Georgia began in the eastern region of Kakheti-Hereti, but the Turks and traitorous feudal lords were unwilling to surrender the power they had gained in the area. Nevertheless, King Davit’s army was in God’s hands, and the Georgians fought valiantly against the massive Turkish army. King Davit himself fought like any other soldier: three of his horses were killed, but he mounted a fourth to finish the fight with a fantastic victory. The Turkish presence was eliminated from his country.
Soon, however, the uncompromising Seljuk sultan Mehmed (Muhammad) I of Baghdad (1105-1118) ordered an army of one hundred thousand soldiers to march on Georgia. When King Davit heard of the enemy’s approach, he immediately assembled a force of fifteen hundred men and led them towards Trialeti. A battle began in the early morning, and with God’s help the enemy was defeated. Simultaneously, the king’s adviser, Giorgi of Chqondidi, (Giorgi of Chqondidi was King Davit’s teacher and closest adviser. He held the post of chancellor-procurator. At the council of Ruisi-Urbnisi, King Davit introduced a new law, combining the office of chancellor-procurator with the archbishopric of Chqondidi, the most influential episcopate in Georgia.) recaptured the town of Rustavi, and in 1115 the Georgian army recovered the ravine of the Mtkvari River. One year later, the Turks, who had been encamped between the towns of Karnipori and Basiani, were banished from the country. The “Great Wars” continued, and the holy king was crowned with new victories. Davit’s son Demetre (later the venerable Damiane), a young man distinguished in “wisdom, holiness, appearance and courage,” was a great asset to his father. The prince led a war on Shirvan, captured Kaladzori, and returned to his father with slaves and great riches, the spoils of war in those days. One year later, the villages of Lore and Agarani were rejoined to Georgia.
In spite of his victories, King Davit knew that it would be difficult for his meager army to protect the recovered cities and fortresses, while continuing to serve as a permanent military force. Thus it became necessary to establish a separate, permanent standing army. The wise king planned to draft men from among the Qipchaks, a northern Caucasian tribe, to form this army. He was well acquainted with the character of these people, and confident that they were brave and seasoned in war. Furthermore, Davit’s wife, Queen Gurandukhti, was a daughter of Atrak, the Qipchaks’ ruler. Atrak joyfully agreed to the request of his son-in-law, the king.
As a true diplomat seeking to maintain peaceful relations with the Qipchaks, King Davit took his adviser, Giorgi of Chqondidi, and traveled to the region of Ossetia in the northern Caucasus. There Giorgi of Chqondidi, an “adviser to his master and participant in his great works and victories,” reposed in the Lord. Following this, the dispirited King Davit declared that his kingdom would grieve for forty days. But he accomplished what he had set out to do, and selected forty thousand Qipchaks to add to the five thousand Georgian soldiers he had already enlisted. From that point on King Davit had a standing army of forty-five thousand men.
The king’s enormous army finally uprooted the Turkish presence in and around Georgia permanently. The defeated Turks returned in shame to their sultan in Baghdad, draped in black as a sign of grief and defeat. Nevertheless, the unyielding sultan Mahmud II (1118-1131) rallied a coalition of Muslim countries to attack Georgia. The sultan summoned the Arab leader Durbays bin Sadaka, commanded his own son Malik (1152-1153) to serve him, gathered an army of six hundred thousand men, and marched once more towards Georgia.
It was August of 1121. Before heading off to battle, King Davit inspired his army with these words: “Soldiers of Christ! If we fight bravely for our Faith, we will defeat not only the devil’s servants, but the devil himself. We will gain the greatest weapon of spiritual warfare when we make a covenant with the Almighty God and vow that we would rather die for His love than escape from the enemy. And if any one of us should wish to retreat, let us take branches and block the entrance to the gorge to prevent this. When the enemy approaches, let us attack fiercely!”
None of the soldiers thought of retreating. The king’s stunning battle tactics and the miracles of God terrified the enemy. As it is written, “The hand of God empowered him, and the Great-martyr George visibly led him in battle. The king annihilated the godless enemy with his powerful right hand.”
The battle at Didgori enfeebled the enemy for many years. The following year, in 1122, King Davit recaptured the capital city of Tbilisi, which had borne the yoke of slavery for four hundred years. The king returned the city to its mother country. In 1123 King Davit declared the village of Dmanisi a Georgian possession, and thus, at last, unification of the country was complete.
One victory followed another, as the Lord defended the king who glorified his Creator.
In 1106 King Davit had begun construction of Gelati Monastery in western Georgia, and throughout his life this sacred complex was the focus of his efforts on behalf of the revival of the Georgian Church. Gelati Monastery was the most glorious of all the existing temples to God. To beautify the building, King Davit offered many of the great treasures he had acquired as spoils of war. Then he gathered all the wise, upright, generous, and pious people from among his kinsmen and from abroad and established the Gelati Theological Academy. King Davit helped many people in Georgian churches both inside and outside his kingdom. The benevolent king constructed a primitive ambulance for the sick and provided everything necessary for their recovery. He visited the infirm, encouraging them and caring for them like a father. The king always took with him a small pouch in which he carried alms for the poor.
The intelligent and well-lettered king spent his free time reading the Holy Scriptures and studying the sciences. He even carried his books with him to war, soliciting the help of donkeys and camels to transport his library. When he tired of reading, King Davit had others read to him, while he listened attentively. One of the king’s biographers recalls, “Each time Davit finished reading the Epistles, he put a mark on the last page. At the end of one year, we counted that he had read them twenty-four times.”
King Davit was also an exemplary writer. His “Hymns of Repentance” are equal in merit to the works of the greatest writers of the Church.
This most valiant, powerful, and righteous Georgian king left his heirs with a brilliant confession when he died. It recalled all the sins he had committed with profound lamentation and beseeched the Almighty God for forgiveness.
King Davit completed his will in 1125, and in the same year he abdicated and designated his son Demetre to be his successor. He entrusted his son with a sword, blessed his future, and wished him many years in good health and service to the Lord. The king reposed peacefully at the age of fifty-three.
St. Davit the Restorer was buried at the entrance to Gelati Monastery. His final wish was carved in the stone of his grave: This is My rest for ever and ever; here I will dwell, for I have chosen her (Ps. 131:15).
.jpg)
KINGDOM OF DAVID THE BUILDER
David IV, the Builder (1089- 1125), inherited a bitter legacy: the country lay divided and in ruins, and its population had been drastically long and unequal struggle; people had been driven out of their homes and were hiding in the mountains and forests.
David pursued a purposeful policy, taking no unconsider-ed step. He was determined to bring order to the land, subjugate the class-enemy, bridle the unsubmissive secular and ecclesias-tical feudal lords, centralise the state-administration, form a new type of army that would stand up better to the Seljuk military organization, and then go over to a methodical offensive with the aim of expelling the Seljuks first from Georgia and then from the whole of the Transcaucasus.
Internal policy. First and foremost, it was imperative to clear the Seljuks out Kartli proper and give the surviving population the possibility of returning to their homes and restore the dislocated economy.
King David began reforming his army, which had been disorganized and demoralized by innumerable setbacks. He mustered units consisting mainly of Crown-peasants and small gentry. Employing surprise tactics, these troops attacked the Seljuk settlements and gradually pushed the invaders out of "Shida" (Inner) Kartli. "And the people began returning to their homes", writes the chronicler.
King David himself and his closest associates were well aware that, before they could launch large-scale operations against the Seljuks, it was vital to ensure peace at home, in other words, to subordinate the unsubmissive nobility to the throne. Here again, the House of Baghvashi, in particular the "eristavi" of Kldekari, Liparit IV, were conspicuous among the recalcitrants.
As we have already noted, Bagrat HI and his direct successors had futilely endeavoured to bring this strong feudal family to submission. During the early years of David IV's reign the domains of Liparit IV consisted of Trialeti, Kldekari and abjoi-ning lands. According to the chronicler, Liparit was disloyal to his sovereign; indeed, in 1093 David learned that Liparit was conspiring against him. Liparit was imprisoned, but two years later he was released on oath of fidelity to the king. But soon afterwards, David was informed of his new intrigues. Liparit was seized and then exiled to Byzantium. The "Eristav-ship" of Kldekari was abolished and incorporated within the Grown-possessions. Trialeti's significant strategic location made it immensely important to the unity of Georgia. That explains the efforts first of the Egris-Abkhasian kings and then of the kings of united Georgia to gain control of that province. The abolition of that strong "eristavship" and its incorporation within the Crown-domains greatly undermined the opposition and gave the king a stronger hand.
Moreover, David waged a long and unremitting struggle against the feudal lord, Dzagan Abuletisdze, brother of the Bishop Modistos. What happened to Liparit, Dzagan and others evidently served as a warning.
The efforts to centralise state-power could not be confined to the struggle with secular feudal lords. The question of the place, held by the Church in the state-system, was also of the utmost importance. Georgia's final unification and the establishment of a single administration necessarily implied the Church's subordination to the state.
At one stage, as we have shown, the Georgian Church had supported the Georgian kings in their efforts to unite the country, for it felt that such unity would give it political control of all the churches in Georgia and of their possessions. Moreover, it was believed that this would help to assert the influence of the Mtskheta Patriarch over the West Georgian church. As a result of the steps taken by the kings of West Georgia, the West Georgian had been subordinated to the Mtskheta Cathedral. But, subsequently, the strengthened Church began to demand immunity, which it finally obtained early in the 11th century. In the course of the 10th and 11th centuries, after the occupancy of high positions had become hereditary., the feudal aristocracy gradually acquired increasing power in the Georgian Church.
With its power enhanced, it no longer suited the Church to have a strong secular monarch endeavouring to keep it in the status of a subordinate ally. Of special significance in this context was the establishment of the Patriarchate in Georgia in the 1120s and the attempts of Giorgi Mtatsmindeli to uproot the practice of hereditary appointments to high office in the Church. But the 1060s, when Giorgi Mtatsmindeli came to Georgia on the invitation of King Bagrat IV and sought to introduce innovations, proved to be an unpropitious time for measures of this kind, and Bagrat IV, who was assisted by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli failed to purge the Church and install his supporters in high ecclesiastical office. The situation continued to deteriorate in the period from the 1060s to the close of the century; most of the high posts in the Church were taken over by the feudal aristocracy, and the alliance of the ecclesiastical and secular nobility grew stronger and was directed against the throne. Early in the 11th century the bishops of Bana and Atskuri sided with invading Byzantium-forces. During the first years of King David IV's reign the big feudal lord, Dzagani rose against the king with the support of his brother, Bishop Modistos. The monasteries and churches opposed the central state-power; King David took determined steps against them.
In describing the situation in the Church, historical sources give us a very unsavoury picture. A system under which posts in the Church were sold was evidently widespread in the rnid-11th century (this system had been attacked by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli), but towards the end of that century the situation worsened still further. It is possible that in their desire to justify the harsh measures taken by David, historical sources somewhat exaggerate, but by and large the situation was serious and it was very difficult to fight the Church. However, it is riot to be excluded that the king had supporters in the Church. In those ays there was a strong group of progressive Church-leaders on whom David could rely. They included the "mtsignobar-ukhutsesi" Giorgi, who was a close associate of the king,- the Patriarch Ioann, the king's confessor Yevstrati and the monk Arseni.
David decided to enforce a radical reform with the purpose of subordinating the Church to the state. This was vital for the final centralization of state-power. But before this* reform could be put into effect, undesirable hierarchs had to be Swept from the highest posts in the state. The king was well aware that this would not be an easy task, and he: therefore laid his preparations carefully, He gradually enlisted more supporters, attracting to his side prominent Church-leaders working outside Georgia, correspondingly moulded public opinion and, finally, in 1103 convened an ecclesiastical congress, known as the Ruis-Urbnisi- synod.
David's supporters won an overwhelming victory at this synod, taking over all the undesirable highest Church-offices. As a non-ecclesiastic, the king formally had no authority to intervene in Church-affairs, but by placing his supporters in key Church-offices he made considerable headway in actually subordinating the Church to the state, and the Church had to reconcile itself to this fact. However, this triumph had to be consolidated and the power of the state over the Church finally asserted. For this purpose David combined two offices: courtial ("mtsignobar-tukhutsesi") and clerical (Bishop of Chkondidi). This was a significant step towards centralizing state-power.
At the Georgian court there 'had long been the office of head of the royal chancellery - "mtsignobartukhutsesi". This office had always been held by a monk. The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was a privy-counsellor of the king, and was devoted to the Crown by virtue of the character of his office.
The higher civilian officials at the royal court were given conditional possession of estates and, naturally, sought to turn these estates into hereditary property together with the office that went with them. The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was a monk and had no ambitions of this kind.
The Bishop of Chkondidi was similarly loyal to the Crown. The Ckhondidi Cathedral was founded in the first half of the 10th century by Giorgi, king of Egris-Abkhazeti. As the other cathedrals founded in Western Georgia by the kings of Egris-Abkhazeti, this cathedral was set up to counter the Greek Cathedrals, and, by virtue of this, it was a mainstay of the central state-power against external and internal enemies. The bishops of Chkondidi enjoyed the greatest prestige among the bishops of Western Georgia and they had been faithful to the throne for two centuries. Because of the Chkondidi bishop's considerable influence in Church affairs, David the Builder united the two abovernentioned offices in one person soon after the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod, and created the institution of "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli". The authority of the Chkondidi bishop was thus greatly enhanced in the Church, and whereas the "mtsignobartukhutsesi", the head of the royal Chancellery, was the most powerful figure in the state-apparatus after the king, the "chkondideli" became the highest dignitary in the Church after the patriarch. Through the "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli", the king was thus able to interfere in the affairs of the Church and dictate his will to it.
This situation existed permanently throughout the period while the single Georgian feudal monarchy was in existence (with the exception of short intervals). This was further evidence of the timeliness and expediency of this step in the conditions obtaining at the time.
Since it was clear from the very beginning that this step was designed to strengthen the central state-power, it naturally evoked the disaffection of the reactionary feudal nobility. An echo of the struggle over this issue between the king and the reactionary nobles was quite possibly the fact that in the period from 1118 (after the death of the first "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli" Giorgi) to 1125 the Bishop of Chkondidi had no favour with the king. After the death of the "mtsignobartukhutsesi" Giorgi, David IV appointed his nephew Svimon, Bishop of Bedia and Alaverdi, to the post but secured his enthronement as the Bishop of Chkondidi only in 1125.
Thus, as a result of these steps, the Georgian Church was subordinated to state-control, and instructions on divine service and on internal arrangement . were received from the court. Moreover, the top-dignitaries of the Church - the patriarch, the fathers superior of monasteries, and so on - took part in the affairs of the supreme state-council, the "Darbazi". At the same time, the king showed considerable concern for churches and monasteries, built new churches, granted estates to them, gave them complete immunity from taxation, and so forth. These considerable benefits to the Church could be granted by the king of a country that was strong politically and economically.
The subordination of the Church was of immense significance in that it strengthened the state-system as a whole. The Church-reforms were followed by substantial changes in the state-administration, changes that strengthened the Georgian state and the centralized power of the king.
The measure taken by King David to centralize the state-power were not confined to establishing the office of "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli". David the Builder led the Georgian feudal state to a new road of development. Quite naturally, this radical remounding of the state-system entailed changes in the rights and duties of other categories of officials.
An integral system of administration began to take shape together with Georgia's unification and the creation of a single feudal monarchy. Evidently, much remained in this system from .. the early Georgian feudal states, but basically the administrative apparatus was "formed along new lines.
The institution of the office of "vaziri" was one of the most important measures in the reform of the administrative apparatus:
In Georgian historical sources "vaziris" are mentioned only from the 12th century onwards, but it is assumed that all the officials("mtsignobartukhutsesi, "mandaturtukhutsesi", "mechurchletukhutsesi" and so on), who were later called "vaziri", had existed in Georgian since remote times and were known as "elders" ("ukhutsesi") of individual departments. After the united Georgian feudal monarchy was formed, new departments were set up and some of the "ukhutsesis" became directly linked to the bureaucratic apparatus, in which they were department-heads. In the 12th-l3th centuries some, who handled matters of vital significance to the state, were given the rank of "vaziri". The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was the first of the "ukhutsesis" to receive the rank of "vaziri" - the "msachurt-ukhutsesi" was the last.
The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was elevated to the rank of "vaziri" by David the Builder with the purpose of placing him above all the other officials of the court. This rank was later received by other "ukhutsesis".
The reform of the judiciary was one of the most important reforms enforced by David with the aim of recognizing the administration,
Prior to David, all court proceedings were directed by the king and all cases coming up before the supreme court had to be tried personally by the king. At an earlier stage there was evidently justification for this simple court procedure. But with the enlargement of the Georgian kingdom, the growth of the administrative apparatus and the intensification of central power, this traditional court-procedure was no longer consonant with the new situation. The condition of the peasants deteriorated as the Georgian feudal state grew stronger; they were brutally oppressed by the state, the landowners and the officials, and this led to increasing resistance from the, masses. This situation required a reform of the judiciary and the creation of an organ that would be more in keeping with the requirements of the times.
In Georgia the supreme court of appeal was the "Saajo kari" (the court of petitions), which was presided over by the king himself. King David appointed a "mtsignobartukhutsesi" to head the "Saajo kari". With two "mtsignobaris" (notaries public) the latter precided over this court.
The "Saajo kari" safeguarded internal law and order. To quote King David's historian, its purpose was "to protect the oppressed and humiliated". In a feudal state there were innumerable pretexts for violence and injustice. The oppressors were the big feudal lords, the "eristavs" and their myrmidons, tax-collectors, tenants, customs-officials, and so on. Needless to say, the oppressed were "protected" in the interests of the feudal state-power.
The chief function of the "Saajo kari" was to combat feudal anarchy and safeguard state-interests; it protected the interests of the king and his social mainstay from the "mtavars" and, particularly, from the oppressed people.
The work of the judiciary was supervised by the king himself, who guided it in the manner required by state-interests, The institution of informer, set up by David, was of no little importance in strengthening and centralising the power of the Georgian state, The king had informers at the courts of the big feudal lords, in the churches and monasteries, in his own army, in the Seljuk hordes roaming Georgia and also in neighbouring regions. He had informers even at the courts of neighbouring kingdoms. The espionage-system and well organized shadowing in and outside the kingdom kept the king informed of everything around him.
The espionage-system in all important internal and external affairs acquired special importance at this time because this institution was well developed and widely used in the states ruled by the Seljuks.
The organization of the army was of particularly great significance in the history of the Georgian state. On account of the long and devastating wars against the Seljuks. Georgia lost much of her military strength. The general decline of economic opportunities and the diminution of the population led to a reduction of the army's numerical strength. The waning of the royal power, the growth of the power of the feudal lords, particularly in the reign of Giorgi II, undermined discipline in the feudal army and disorganized it. The army had to be reorganized and trained, and discipline had to be tightened. Moreover, the military organization of the Seljuks had to be taken into account because they were the foe at this stage.
As King David's historian notes, the king had only a small contingent of staunch troops. Most of the army was demoralised, the soldiers believing that the Seljuks were invincible. Discipline fell to the extent that the soldiers spent their time in idle pursuints. King David strictly forbade any entertainment in the units, tightened control and infiltrated informers into the army.
He mustered his most faithful troops and formed a bodyguard, "mona-spa", which took part in the most important and difficult operations. The "mona-spa" was entirely dependent on the king and had no bonds whatever with the feudal nobility. The king personally directed the training and equipment of his troops. Control was strengthened over the feudal volunteer-forces and this, together with the other measures instituted to centralize the state-power, ensured order among these forces as well.
David divided the entire Georgian army into three main parts. One, as we have noted, consisted of the royal bodyguard, the second were the garrisons of towns and fortress, and the third consisted of the main body of troops, which, King David's historian writes, "were constantly at war, winter and summer".
These measures ensured the mobilization of the country's entire military potential. David began his struggle against the Seljuks with small raids against nomads wandering in Georgia. These operations were led by the king himself. He inspired the troops by personal example, encouraged those who distinguished themselves and punished cowards (they were dressed in women's clothes and paraded in front of all the troops). A well-organized, disciplined and trained army began pressing the Seljuks and in the period from the beginning of the 12th century to 1118 almost the whole of Georgia was cleared of the Turkish hordes. But this was not enough: the liberated lands had to be solidly consolidated. Moreover, King David saw that the army was not strong enough to fulfil his plans, and that, because of the man-power-shortage, the required number of troops could not be raised.
In addition, the uneceasing efforts to expel the Seljuks from Georgia prevented the peasants from working the land with considerable loss to the economy. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Georgian army consisted of feudal volunteers, or which reason it was not always possible for the entire army to respond to the summons of the king. True, most of the recalcitrant feudal lords were brought into line by the measures instituted by David, but this state of affairs had to be sustained to which end the king's forces had to be numerically stronger than the forces of any individual feudal lord. The country needed a standing-army, but this the economy of feudal Georgia could not ensure at the time. King David IV solved this problem very circumspectly and effectively. He resettled a Kipchak tribe of 40. 000 families from the Northern Caucasus in Georgia. The settlers were given plots of land and also summer-and winter-pastures, and every family was obligated to provide one soldier with a horse and weapons. This 40,000 strong Kipchak-army was entirely dependent on the king, with no ties with the feudal lords, and this gives the king considerable advantages. David did not accidentally select the Kipchak. They were well known in Georgia as good fighting-men who demanded little for themselves. Further, the Georgian royal court had ties of kinship with the Kipchak: King David was married to the daughter of the Kipchak chief, Otrok, called Ataraka Sharaganisdze in Georgian chronicles. In addition, the Georgian court knew that the rising power of Kiev Rus was pressing and driving the Kipchaks out of the lands they had earlier conquered reducing them to great hordship.
AH these circumstances influenced the king's choice. He negotiated with the Kipchaks and, in 1118, upon reaching agreement, set out for the Daryal Ravine at the head of his troops, accompanied by the 'mtsignobartukhutsesi" Giorgi, to organize their resettlement personally. But the Ossetian kingdom, with which the Kipchaks were at war, lay between Georgia and the Kipchak-domains. The Ossetians refused to let them pass across their country. But when King David arrived, the Ossetian kings went to him and "sank to their knees in submission". King David got the two sides to conclude peace, occupied all the fortresses along the road the Kipchaks were to pass and ensured their unhindered resettlement.
They were settled in different regions of Georgia. Some were settled in Inner Kartli, where most of the population had been exterminated by the Seljuks, others were given land along the border of Northern Armenia and Hereti, where part of their duties was to fortify and guard the state-boundary.
They were quickly assimilated in Georgia. They adopted Christianity and the Georgian language, went over to a sedentary way of life and gradually mixed with the local inhabitants. But some later left Georgia.
In addition to receiving land they were, by order of the king, divided into small detachments that constantly raided enemy-territory. This brought them a large income in the shape of booty.
The resettlement of the Kipchaks and the formation of a standing army greatly enchanced Georgia's military strength. This was evidently what incensed by the official historian.
The new mercenary force had to help consolidate earlier successes and carry out David's further plans for a broad offensive against the Seljuks in the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Shirvan, Ran). It must be noted that a military reform, which led to the formation of a standing-army wholly dependent on the ventral authority, had been enforced by the Seljuks in the latter half of the 11th century. One of the reasons including King David to form a standing-army of his own was, quite possibly, that he wanted to build up a military force that could match the new organization of the Seljuks.
In addition to the 40,000 Kipchaks, the king had a standing-army of 20,000 Georgians; consequently, his army numbered 60,000 troops. Moreover, when necessary he enlisted mercenaries from among the Ossetians, the Daghestan-highlanders, the Kurds and other peoples.
The resettlement of the Kipchaks was unquestionably a measure of immense state-significance and yielded positive results, but it would be wrong, of course, to attribute Georgia's successes in the reign of King David, particularly the establishment of internal order, mainly to foreigners serving in the Georgian army.
Besides its many positive aspects, the resettlement of the Kipchaks had negative aspects: it was dangerous to rely entirely on the Kipchaks, who were accustomed to a nomadic way of life. Moreover, it was habitual for them to serve as mercenaries in the armies of different states, and also to defect to the enemy. Although King David gave them land, thereby inducing them to adopt a sedetary life and providing them with the incentive of defending that life, they nevertheless gave him plenty of trouble. Time and again they betrayed him, even going so far as to plot his assassination.
The Kipchaks were resettled in 1118, when most of Georgia had been cleared of the Seljuks and order had been established in the country. State-reforms had been put into effect at the very beginning of the 12th century, and the reform of the army was conducted at the same time. The Kipchaks were resettled later, and only because these troops were needed by David for the foreign conquests begun by him in the early 1120s. The Kipchak like the Ossetian, Lezghin, Kurd and other mercenaries, were in effect auxiliary-troops. The permanent Kipchak cavalry was never the backbone of the army. Its core consisted of the royal guards and the Georgian feudal units. At the Didgori-battle. there were 15, 000 Kipchak in Georgian army of 40, 000. The burnt of the battle was borne by Georgian troops. After the army-reform, the Georgian army thus consisted of the royal guards ("monaspa") numbering 5,000 horsemen, 60,000 regular troops, the feudal contingents and mercenary-units (formed when necessary). This organization of the army created by David remained practically unchanged throughout the 12th century.
King David enforced a series of measures to subordinate local authorities entirely to the central government. Integrated Georgia was formed through the unification of several historical Georgian regions. At the time this unification was achieved each region had its own system of administration. In turn, the kingdoms of Kakheti, Hereti, South and West Georgia had been formed as a result of the unification of smaller Georgian provinces. Each of these provinces was incorporated in the united kingdom with its own administrative system, for which reason united Georgia required not only the subordination of all the political units to the throne but also the establishment of a uniform system of state-administration. This could not be achieved at once, but ultimately the establishment of that system was decisive for the country's final unification.
The first steps in that direction had been taken by Bagrat III, the first king of united Georgia, when he took the kings of Kakheti and Hereti captived and appointed his own "eristavs" to govern these lands. However, regarding to the ruling families, measures of this kind did not fundamentally change the situation. As I. Javakhishvili pointed out, only rulers were changed, with the old system of administration rarely undergoing modification, it was still necessary to abide by long-standing traditions, to keep intact local creatures and distinctions. Indeed, there was generally little appreciation of the need for a centralized government to consolidate the country's unity. The main thing as that large resources were needed to fight the traditional forms administration, and this was what Bagrat III did not have. In the epoch of feudalism, the provincial system of administration was not eradicated entirely, and, even after the measures intimated by King David, the administration was based not only on the departmental but also on the provincial principle. Nothing more could be expected in feudal times. The provincial system of administration was never abolished entirely in feudal states: this held true at subsequent stages of development. But the subordination of key-departments to the supreme authority was attainable in centralized feudal monarchies. In the reign of David military affairs, finances, the court and other key-state-departments were subordinated to the king's "vaziri", the "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli".
The great political significance and timeliness of David's reforms are borne out by the fact that throughout the subsequent existence of the united Georgian state the administration remained in the form given to it by David.
King David's foreign policy. As we have noted earlier, the power of the king of Georgia did not range east of the Likhi Range. When he began to centralize the state-power. David's first step was to rally loyal strata of the population around himself.
Before beginning his large-scale campaign against the Seljuks, he had taken steps to drive the Turks out of Georgia. He led small detachments in raids against the Seljuks settled in Kartli. The population gradually returned to their homes, and the Seljuk nomads could no longer winter in Kartli.
These raids continued unabated for four years. Sultan Malik-hah died in 1092. This was a landmark in the land of the Great Seljuks, and it was specially noted by King David's historian. The situation in the Seljuk-kingdom had grown extremely complication in the last years of Malik Shah's reign, the first signs of the kingdom's disintegration being the struggle for the throne among the sultan's heirs. The internal conflicts gradually mounted. Nizam-al-Mulk, the vazir and the sultan's chief lieutenant, was assassinated in 1902; the death of the sultan himself remained shrouded in mystery. The Ismailite sect stepped up its struggle, the khalif took increasingly hostile action against the sultan, the class-struggle grew in intensity, and individual provinces began to secede from the kingdom of the Great Seljuks.
These difficulties created favourable opportunities for Georgia to strike effectively at the Turks.
By that time Georgia's international standing had improved in yet another respect. At the synod in Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed commencement of the crusades. Two years later Europe's feudal chivalry reached Asia Minor, seized Edessa, forming their first' state, the duchy of Edessa, and overrunning the whole region of Antioch.
King David was evidently well-informed of all this and duly assessed the situation. Relying on his successes against the great feudal lords and the Seljuks entrenched in Georgia, he ceased paying tribute to the sultan in 1097. Translated into diplomatic language, this was a declaration of war, but the sultan did not respond to this challenge. Georgia was freed of the large and shameful tribute, which David's father, Giorgi II, had regarded as salvation for his people.
King David's historian was conversant with the complicated situation that had taken shape around Georgia and which King David skilfully utilised. He saw the bond between Georgia's internal situation and international developments. He linked the Georgian king's growing power and the cessation of the payment of tribute to the Seljuks with the capture of Antioch and Ierusalem by the Crusaders.
True, the Seljuks staunchly resisted the Crusaders, who had invaded Asia Minor, and in the 11th century their position in the Transcaucasus was very weak, for by that time the Crusaders were mainly fighting the sultans of Rum and other domains of the kingdom of the Great Seljuks. However, the invasion of that large force in the Middle East was a factor of great significance, and it was not accidental that King David’s historian made special note of the seizure of Antioch and Jerusalem by the “Frangs," i. e., the crusaders.
Georgia's international standing in those years was unquestionably due mainly to the weakening of the Iranian Seljuk state, but there were good grounds for the Georgian assessment of the crusades.
After the Seljuks had been driven out of Kartli proper, David the Builder was faced with the problem of reuniting the Georgian lands outside the Georgian kingdom. Before attacking the Turks all along the line it was necessary to mobilise all of Georgia's forces.
David's first objective was the capture of Kakheti and Hereti. In 1101 he took the fortress of Zedazeni. Before marching into Kakheti and Hereti he cleared the way for victory by rallying his supporters in that region. A large group of Hereti nobles ("didebulis") seized Aghsartan, king of Kakheti and Hereti, and turned him over to King David, after which the latter occupied Hereti and Kakheti.
The neighbouring Muslim sovereigns could not reconcile themselves to the incorporation of Kakheti and Hereti in Georgia. With the emir of Gandza at their head, they marched against Georgia. Part of the population of Kakheti evidently sided with the invaders. In a fiercely fought battle near Ertsukhi, King David defeated and pushed back the enemy, and Hereti-Kakheti was finally incorporated within Georgia.
After the reunification of Kakheti-Hereti, the Seljuks were still in possession of the cities of Tbilisi and Rustavi and the whole of Lower Kartli, The campaign opened with an offensive against Lower Kartli, where the Seljuks were still roaming. The ultimate objective of the campaign was to liberate Tbilisi, where the enemy's main forces were concentrated. But before that objective could be achieved, the southern approaches to the city had to be taken. In 1110 Georgian troops captured Samshvilde. The loss of that fortresstown was a heavy blow to the Seljuks, and they were compelled to leave the abjoining territory. The Georgians then took the fortress of Dzerna. A counter-attack by the sultan's troops was repulsed. The fortress of Rustavi fell in 1115.
At the same time there was fighting on the western and eastern boundaries of Georgia. In 1116 the Seljuks were expelled from Tao, and in 1117 David marched against Asat and Shota, rulers of the fortress of Gishi (in Southern Hereti) and sons of Grigol, taking them prisoner and consummating the reunifica-fion of Hereti. In 1118 the Georgian troops routed the Seljuks wintering on the banks of the Arak and in the same year they took the fortresses of Lore and Agarani, completing the reunification of "Kvemo" Kartli. But Tbilisi and Dmanisi were still in the hands of the Turks.
The Tashiri Kvirikids (a beranch of the Armenian Bagratids) had been making inroads in "Kvemo" Kartli since the close of the 9th century. Taking advantage of the weakening of the Ani-kingdom of the Bagratids, Gurgen, a brother of the Armenian king, Sumbat II (977 - 989), founded a kingdom in Tashiri with the capital at Samshvilde. The Georgian Bagrationis (Gvaram "mampali") fought the Tashiri Kvirikids, and in the 1060s King Bagrat IV took Samshvilde, following which the fortress of Lore was made the capital of the kingdom. But the situation was such that Bagrat IV was unable to retain Samshvilde and the town was occupied by the Seljuks. David the Builder regained possession of Samshvilde only in 1110, while in 1118 this kingdom was abolished with the capture of Lore. The significance of the reunification of Lore was not only political but also strategic: the Georgian king was now in control of the road leading from the south to Eastern Georgia and Tbilisi. This cut the Muslims off from the southern approaches to Tbilisi.
With his position thus strengthened, David the Builder began a general offensive against the Seljuks.
His historian gives a laconic but extremely vivid picture of David's military tactics. With Seljuk spies watching every movement of the Georgian army, the king moved his main forces into Western Georgia in order to delude them. This occurred, for instance in 1120. The king moved to Western Georgia and, when the Turks began pillaging Georgian lands, he suddenly attacked them. Only insignificant Seljuk forces escaped. The king then entered Shirvan and took the town of Kabala. He then went to Kartli, but soon after had to return to Shirvan: the population had evidently refused to submit to him.
In the period from the early spring (February) of 1120 to June 1121 Georgian troops attacked the Seljuk settlements on the eastern and south-western approaches to the Transcaucasus and drove the Seljuks out their strongholds. At the same time, the Georgian king attacked them in the large towns of the Transcaucasus. In 1120 he began the assault of Tbilisi.
In the 1080s, when the Seljuks established themselves in Georgia, Tbilisi had passed to their hands. The Jafarid emirs of Tbilisi had been deposed and the city was ruled by a council of eiders ("berni"). In 1110 - 1115 David captured the towns and fortresses around Tbilisi, thus in effect surrounding the city. The Muslim merchant-elite had considerable influence in the city and looked for protection against the Georgian king. They sent an envoy to Torgil ibn-Mukhammed, ruler of Arrana, who dispatched an official, "shikhna", to Tbilisi. David continued the struggle for the city and compelled the population to pay him 10,000 dinars and agree to the presence of a Georgian "shikhna" with a guard of ten horsemen. Of course, this was only a symbol of the Georgian king's power in the city, but it was a step towards the subjugation of Tbilisi. However, this situation did not suit either of the sides, and the people of Tbilisi offered to place their city under the suzerainty of Nejm ad-Din il-Ghazi ruler of Maiyafarikin.
The position of the Turks in the Transcaucasus steadily grew weaker. They were losing their strongholds, and the Georgian king was vigorously advancing against the Seljuk towns, villages and pastures. A delegation of Seljuk rulers and merchants
of Gandza, Tbilisi and Dmanisi went to Sultan Mahmud. The Seljuks were seriously alarmed for their rule in the Transcaucasus was threatened and this required resolute measures. Acting on orders from the Sultan, a coalition force took the field under Nejm ad-Din il-Ghazi.
The Seljuks invaded Georgia along the Manglis-Trialeti road. On August 10, 1121 their army (300,000 strong, according to approximate estimates) encamped in the vicinity of Manglisi-Didgori. King David had 40,000 Georgian troops, 15,000 kipchak, about 500 Ossetian mercenaries and a force of 200 European Crusaders. This numerical breakdown of the Georgian army clearly indicates that its main force consisted of Georgians. This was only natural, for the destiny of the Georgian state was at stake in the battle of Didgori. The involvement of Crusaders (200 soldiers) was of some practical importance: the Crusaders had considerable experience of fighting the Turks, but of still greater significance was their symbolic and political role in this battle - it emphasized that Georgia and the Western countries had common interests in the struggle against the Seljuks,
The Georgian army encamped in the Nichbisi Gorge and on orders from the king the road for a retreat was cut off - the exit from the ravine was blocked. The main force, winch was to bear the brunt of the enemy - assault was commanded personally by the king. The rest of the army, commanded by Prince Demetre, was kept in reserve and was to launch a sudden attack on the enemy at the crucial moment.
Before the battle commenced, David exhorted the troops to fight bravely, reminding them that there was no retreat.
The Georgians won a crushing victory at Didgori on August 12. Not satisfied with the victory on the battlefield, the Georgians pursued and decimated the enemy. The Seljuks suffered huge losses, while the Georgians won the day with relatively few casualties. Many prisoners were taken. The Georgians captured considerable quantities of weapons and jewelry. One piece of booty was particularly important: this was the gold - collar of Dubeis ibn - Sadak, ruler of the town of Khila (on the Euphrates) - symbol' of his strenght and power. To commemorate this victory David presented this jewelstudded collar to the Gelati Monastery.
The importance of the Didgori victory was that it dispersed the myth about invicibility of the Turks and inspired the peoples subjugated by them with the hope of liberation. Moreover, this battle showed that the Muslim world of the Middle East now had a serious rival in Georgia. Further, it opened for David the road to Tbilisi and new victories. Hence forth steered a direct course towards Tbilisi.
The city's destiny was in fact predetermined, but its ruling elite refused to surrender their positions without resistance. In 1122, after heavy fighting, the Georgian troops entered Tbilisi. According to the Georgian chronicler, "the king took Tbilisi in the very first assault".
After this battle the king moved his residence from Kutaisi to Tbilisi, making it his capital. He abolished the local self-government and appointed officials to govern the city.
The next objective was Dmanisi. It was taken in March, 1123.
Thus ended the Georgian people's long and bitter struggle to reunite their country. The last strongholds of the Seljuks in Georgia fell with the seizure of Tbilisi and Dmanisi.
Following the liberation of the whole of Georgia David the Builder shifted military operations to territory outside Georgia: the land could not be guaranteed against the threat of attack as long as the approaches to it were in the hands of the Seljuks. Georgia's further political interests were linked with Armenia and Shirvan.
A circumstance that must be borne in mind is that, after capturing Tbilisi, King David advanced against Dmanisi and Gandza, cities which had invited external forces against Georgia. For the time being Gandza escaped merely with being attacked, But Dmanisi was, as we have noted, reunited with Georgia. Then began the decisive battle for Shirvan and Armenia.
The struggle for Armenia and Shirvan, as in the case of the struggle for the Northern Caucasus, pursued both strategic and economic objectives. On the one hand, the seizure of Armenia and Derbent would make Georgia's frontiers secure and, the other, possession of these territories would give Georgia control of Caucasian Middle Eastern and international trade-routes.
King David began his campaign against Shirvan early in the 12th century, but was unable to envigorate it because before beginning the struggle for the liberation of the Transcaucasus, he had to complete Georgia's unification and then mobilize the local population for the war against the Seljuks.
The reunification of Kakheti and Hereti gave Georgia frontiers abutting Shirvan, with the result that relations with the Shirvan-shahs occupied an important place in King David's foreign policy.
In 1116, after the Seljuks were expelled from Tao, David sent his daughter, Kata, to Byzantium as the bride of the emperor. Prior to this, his elder daughter, Tamar, had been given in marriage to the shah of Shirvan, so that as two celestial bodies, one would illumine the East and other the West.
The Georgian king's last step pursued the aim of forming a political alliance with Shirvan to insure a joint struggle against the Seljuks.
Seljuk sultans were likewise seeking the support of the shah of Shirvan, for the latter's attitude would be of considerable importance in the imminent war between Georgia and the Seljuks. But David evidently failed to win over the shah of Shirvan, and went to war against him in 1117.
Before beginning his campaign against Shirvan, the Georgian king subjugated the Grigolisdze feudal possession with its capital, the fortress of Gishi, on the westernmost outskirts of Georgia. This fortress had evidently retained its independence with the aid of the Turks. After capturing the fortress of Gishi, David sent Prince Demetre to Shirvan at the head of a large army (1117).
Raids into Shirvan followed one another in quick succession. The Georgian king had apparently succeeded in winning over the ruler of Derbent. The shah of Shirvan was killed in one of the battles with Derbent-forces. A candidate who enjoyed the favour of the Georgian king and had been his ally in the Didgori-battle was installed on the Shirvan-throne. To avenge the defeat at Didgori, Sultan Makhmoud decided, as a first step, to punish the shah of Shirvan. He invaded Shirvan, took the town of Shemakha, captured the shah and sent the Georgian king an insulting message, informing him of the capture of the shah Shirvan and demanding tribute ("kharaja"). He offered David two alternatives: either make the proper gifts or accept
open battle. David took the field against the sultan and en-route put to flight the atabag of Ran, who was marching to the sultan's assistance. The frightened sultan fled from Shirvan under cover of darkness, but David was unable to take advantage of this on account of the bickering in his army between Kipchaks and Georgians.
As we have noted earlier, the Shirvan issue was of great importance to both Georgia and the Seljuks, The struggle for Shirvan dragged on and sapped the strength of both sides. The Georgian king waged an unending struggle for Shirvan, now seizing towns and fortress and then retreating again. While the Christians in Shirvan supported the king of Georgia, the Muslims begged the Seljuk sultan to protect them against the intrusions of the "infidel" king. In this situation it was vital to consolidate the Georgian power in Shirvan. Also, it must be borne in mind that the shah of Shirvan was the sultan's prisoner and no longer figured in subsequent events, in other words, the local ruling dynasty was no longer represented. In 1124, when David finally conquered Shirvan, he subjugated that country directly to the Crown. The towns and fortresses were garrisoned with Georgian troops, and the country was governed by officials appointed by the Georgian court.
The struggle for Armenia proceeded in parallel with the conquest of Shirvan, In May 1124 King David took a number of fortresses in Northern Armenia. The account given by David's historian about the capture of the fortress-towns of Gagi, Teruna-kan and Mankaberd and a large part of Armenia is corroborated by the Armenian historians, Vardan the Great and Stepanos Orbeli.
This did not end the struggle for Armenia. On August 20, 1123 "envoys of the elders of Ani came (to David - M. L.) and said (they wished - M. L.) to turn the town over to him". According to Vardan the Great, the Ani-elders were motivated by the intention of Shaddadid Abul-Aswar, the emir of Ani, to sell the town to the emir of Kars for 60,000 dinars. Moreover, Abul-Aswar had turned the Ani-Cathedral into a mosque. Altho-ughn the people of Ani had invited David, the Shaddadids refused to yield the town. David mustered an army of 60,000 troops and seized Ani and the regions adjoining it. Together with eight sons and relatives, Emir Abul-Aswar was taken prisoner and sent to Georgia. According to Matteois Urkhayetsi, King David defeated the Muslim army (nearly 20,000 troops were killed) and liberated the Armenian town of Ani from its 60 years' Muslim captivity. In the liberation of Bagratid Armenia from Muslim tyranny a large contribution was made by the Armenian population, which fought side by side with the Georgian troops.
King David appointed officials to govern both the town and region and left a Georgian garrison there. The former Shirak-kingdom of the Ani-Bagratuni was incorporated in Georgia. "The defense of Ani was entrusted to the Meskheti-"aznauris", - writes a Georgian historian, that was when the Georgian kings took the title of Shahan-sha, i. e. the title of the Armenian Bagratids. Although the Georgian king wrested the Shirak-kingdom from the Shaddadids, he did not regard the latter the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified.
Relations with northern neighbours held an important place in Georgia's political history. A vital issue in these relations was the possession of the passes in the Caucasian Mountains, particularly across the Daryal Ravine. The fortificaion of the Daryal pass was one of the main problems of the kings of united Georgia from the beginning of the 11th century onwards.
This problem was resolved in the reign of David. In order to secure the Daryal route, Khevsureti was made a Crown-possession, royal palaces and fortresses were built in the Aragvi and Ter ravines, and fortifications were erected in Mukhrani.
In 1118 David occupied the Daryal fortresses, and all the "gates of the Ovseti and Caucasian mountains". King David built a fortress below Gveleti, and nearby he constructed a palace, which he used during his campaigns in Ossetia.
Possession and fortification of this route were indispensable for the maintenance and development of the flourishing economic, political and cultural relations that Georgia had with the Northern Caucasus.
In the Northern Caucasus Georgia had the closest relations with the Ossetians. The Georgian kings frequently used Ossetian mercenaries against internal and external enemies.
David the Builder showed a particularly keen interest in the Darubandi - (Derbendi -) route, which explained his interest in Northern Azerbaijan. The struggle between Georgia and the Seljuks for Shirvan and the Derbent pass reached a high pitch. David appreciated the great strategic and commercial value of the Caspian gates.
In his relations with the peoples of the Northern Caucasus, David abided by the traditions laid down by his predecessors. Georgia had always close contacts with her northern neighbours. Here attention must be drawn to the relations of the kingdom of Egris-Abkhazeti with Ossetia and Jiketi and to Georgia's relations with the Vainakh people (Durdzuki). These were political, economic and cultural relations. By spreading the Georgian language, culture and literature, and also Christianity (in particular, by the building of Georgian churches), Georgia strove to bind these peoples to herself and draw them into the Georgian. cultural and political world. Via the Northern Caucasus Georgia maintained her most distant ties - with Kiev Rus.
The Kipchaks inhabiting the South Russian steppes were constantly at war with Kiev Rus. In 1103 some of them crossed the Don and others settled in the Northern Caucasus as neighbours of the Ossetians. David entered into relations with the latters, who were led by Otrok. He married Otrok's daughter and then resettled the tribe in Georgia.
In the Northern and Western Christian world, Georgia was known as a strong Christian kingdom. Evidence of this was the marriage of the Kiev prince Isyaslav to a daughter of King David (or of his son Demetre). This marriage gave the Kiev prince added prestige and brought him the support of a strong Orthodox state. It strengthened his hand in his intention to settle the difficulties in the Church without Byzantine interference and to subject it to his power. An interesting point is that the Kiev state concluded a political alliance precisely with Georgia, which at the time had become a rival and successor of the Byzantine empire in the Middle East.
A further indication of Georgia's growing prestige was the contact that she established with the Crusaders. Georgia and the Crusaders were drawn together by the circumstance that they had a common enemy - the Seljuks. True, they had entirely different aims and interests, but the wars of Georgia and the Crusaders at the close of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries objectively pursued one and the same purpose. For that reason the reports about King David's contacts with one of the Crusader-leaders, the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin, are quite credible. The participation of a contingent of Crusaders in the Didgori-battle is evidence of these contacts.
Thus, as a result of the steps taken in Georgia at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century, David's words that he was bequeathing to his son Demetre a land extending "from Nikopsia to Derbent and from Ossetia to Aragatsi", are well founded. Also well founded but somewhat exaggerated is the record of King David's historian that David made the sultan a tributary, that the Greek king became his kinsman, that he destroyed the barbarians, subjected kings, enslaved rulers, forced the Arabs to flee, pillaged Ismail, and reduced the Persians to dust and their princes to peasants.
In the first quarter of the 12th century (in the reign of David the Builder), Georgia was completely liberated from the Seljuks. The long process of uniting the Georgian lands and the creation of a united Georgian feudal monarchy was consummated. Moreover, Georgia annexed Northern Armenia, Shirvan and a large part of the Northern Caucasus.
These major successes were due to a number of internal and external factors.
In Georgia rapid economic, cultural and political development began in the 9th century. The general upsurge and ultimate unification were fostered by the further expansion of intensive branches of agriculture and handicrafts, the economic union of various provinces and the bustling domestic and foreign trade.
The Seljuk invasion was a heavy blow to the united country holding up its further development. Nevertheless, Georgia shook off the foreign yoke, even if, in so doing, it had to make a considerable sacrifice.
Before taking the field against the Seljuks, King David subordinated the powerful secular feudal lords and made the Georgian Church, a strong feudal organisation in its own rights, his ally. Actions against the Crown were regarded as high treason. At a time when the people were waging a life-and death struggle against the Seljuk invaders, any weakening of the stand against internal and external enemies was also regarded as tantamount to high treason. This gave David a strong hand against particularist trends and was used by him to justify his ruthless repressions.
The war against the Seljuks was a war of liberation. The Georgian people fought to recover the land taken by the Seljuks, to recover the homeland of their fathers. The Georgian peasants defended their farms from ruin and their families from annihilation. When this movement was headed by a gifted organizer, strategist and statesman, the entire nation rose against the enemy.
King David united the scattered forces and devoted all his energy to the national cause.
Although David championed the interests of the ruling class, he relied on the masses, on the petty and military middle nobility, who regarded him as their deliverer from the foreign invaders and their defender against the great feudal lords; also, he depended on the peasants, who looked to the Crown to deliver them from the external enemy. The king had the support of the Georgian towns, which had grown stronger and bigger and found that it was not to their advantage to be outside a strong Transcaucasian state.
The Seljuk domains were disintegrating: the endless wars between the political units that emerged on the ruins of these domains obstructed international trade and hindered the further development of towns and urban life. In the Middle East, feudal Georgia was really the only growing state with a strong centralized power. Hence the gravitation of the towns towards her. This is strikingly illustrated by the history of Tbilisi and Ani. The elders of Tbilisi had turned the city over to the Georgian king on many occasions in the 11th century, while the elders of Ani had offered their town first to Bagrat IV and to David the Builder. True, in 1122 King David had to take Tbilisi by assault but this resistance was due to his policy of abolishing the city's self-government and also to the existence of large Muslim population, which included a military-feudal aristocracy. Whenever the Tbilisi-elders offered the city to the Georgian king, this step was resisted by the Muslim military-feudal-elite, entrenched in Isani. Thus, this example hardly changes the overall picture.
In his struggle to complete Georgian's unification and expel the Seljuks, David thus relied on the petty and middle military nobility, the Church and the great feudal lords, who were subordinated to the central power. The reorganized army was his immediate military buttress.
The entire might of the people was directed towards one goal, and the desired objective was attained.
The mobilisation of all forces ensured the success of David's struggle for Armenia and Shirvan. In this struggle he championed the liberation of neighbouring peoples from foreign oppression, and this brought him the support and military assistance of the local Christian population.
Not only Georgian but also many non-Georgian lands came under the Georgian Crown as a result of David's wars against internal and external enemies. As could have been expected, all the annexed regions were subordinated to Georgian state-power.
Characteristic in this respect was David's policy in Georgia, relative to the possessions of recalcitrant feudal lords. For instance, when the power of the Baghvashi-family was finally broken, the king incorporated all its possessions in his domains. The Kldekari-"eristavship" was abolished. The same fate overtook other big feudal possessions.
David pursued an analogous policy with regard to the countries conquered from the Seljuks. When he captured the town of Ani, he sent its ruler, Abdul-Aswar, together with the latter's son, Shaddad, and entire family, to Western Georgia, placed that part of Armenia under his direct rule and garrisoned it with Georgian troops. Shirvan was also subordinated directly to the king's chancellor.
Although David depended on the towns, he subordinated them to his chancellor. Ani, Samshvilde, Rustavi, Dmanisi and other towns were thus subordinated to the central power. This policy was due to the changed attitude of some Transcaucasian towns. As we know, in 1121, a delegation of the merchants of Gandza, Tbilisi and Dmanisi went to the sultan to request assistance against the Georgian king. These towns concluded a political alliance among themselves against King David.
David was determined to centralise state-power to the utmost.
A different policy was adopted towards northern neighbours. For instance, he concluded an alliance with the rulers of Ossetia under the terms of which they became his vassals. When the Kipchaks were resettled, the Georgian king occupied the entire Daryal route and still further strengthened his good neighbourly relations with the Ossetian rulers. The Durdzuki, Didois and other highland-tribes of the Northern Caucasus were likewise tributaries of Georgia.
The aim this policy was primarily to strengthen Georgia's northern frontier and ensure her further advance northwards. Although in the north, Georgia was protected by the lofty mountains of Caucasian Range, the passes were of enormous economic and strategic significance. For that reason David held these passes firmly and made vassals of the inhabitants of the northern slopes.
As David saw it, the entire country had to belong to the Crown, with "aznauris" installed as governors, on condition they personally served in the army (military nobility). As N. Berdzenishvili justifiably notes, although David could not entirely implement his policy, there is no doubt that he pursued it and subordinated the administration of domestic and external affairs to the Crown.
He united the country not only by bringing remote regions . under Crown-control but also by his far-sighted policy of centralising the state-power. In this context, the reorganisation of the court, namely, the enlargement of the office of "mtsignobartukhu-tsesi" was of particularly great importance. He opposed the power of the "eristavi", typical of the epoch of early-feudal dismemberment, with the power of the highest court-official, the "vaziri" "mtsignobartukhutsesi", giving the latter prominence.
Among the steps taken to unite remote regions and subordinate, them to the Crown, interest is centred on the unification of the episcopal sees of Bedia and Alaverdi. By subordinating two episcopal sees situated in different parts of the country (Bedia in Egrisi, West Georgia, Alaverdi in Kakheti, East Georgia) to one and the same person, the highest representative of the Crown, King David stressed the unity of all the Georgian regions and their subordination to the central authority.
Georgia's expansion brought it not only Georgian lands proper but also non-Georgian regions (Armenia, Shirvan) together with their non-Georgian population: Muslims, Jews, Gregorian Armenians and others. Muslims, Armenians and Jews lived also in Georgian towns (particularly Tbilisi).
This raised the problem of the status of people of other nationalities and religions. The Georgian court adopted a policy of ethnic-and religious-tolerance. This is vividly illustrated by the benefits grated to Muslims of Tbilisi; Christians were forbidden to slaughter pigs, Muslims were given complete freedom to profess their faith, and one of the city's baths was reserved exclusively for them.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the per-capita-taxes paid to the state by the urban population was: Georgians 5 dinars, Armenians 4 dinars, and Muslims 2 dinars. David showed his' respect for Muslims by building a palace for them in Tbilisi. Although this was an unusual policy in feudal times, it was dictated by the need to strengthen the internal unity of the multinational state in the interests of the ruling class.
King David was perfectly well aware of Tbilisi's place and significance in Georgia's subsequent history. In those days it was one of the most important commercial centers in the Middle East. Long Muslim rule had given prominence to Muslim merchants in the city's life. It was the desire to maintain normal relations with these merchants that mainly predetermined David's policy. He reckoned with the fact that in the middle East all trade was in the hands of Muslims. Tbilisi was a trade-hub, and this benefited Georgia most of all. Also, King David reckoned with the circumstance that Muslim states were powerful in the Middle East, and, as an enlightened and perspicacious ruler of a civilized state, he showed respect for the religious faith of his neighbours and did not persecute other nationalities and religions.
He showed similar respect for the large Armenian population, but it must be noted that from David's day, Georgia's rulers made every effort to draw the annexed countries into the Georgian world and bind them to Georgian statehood. Various means were used to achieve this aim. In this context,. a consistent policy was pursued towards Armenia from the very beginning.
Most of Armenia was incorporated within Georgia in the reign of David the Builder. Armenians and Georgians fought shoulder to shoulder to liberate their land from Turkish invaders.
The Armenian historians of those days paid tribute to King David for liberating the Armenians from foreign oppression and regarded him as the saviour of their people. King David did much to restore Armenian towns, build good roads and promote the welfare of the population. This was only natural, for he regarded Armenia as part of his kingdom. He helped to resettle Armenians in Georgia, large numbers of whom made their homes in Gori, where they were provided with facilities for handicrafts and trade.
The policy towards people of their religions and nationalities was evidence of Georgia's high cultural level and its great political strength,
But in considering this general policy, it must be borne in mind that, in those years, Georgia emerged as the force uniting the Caucasian peoples, politically and culturally rallying kindred and neighbouring Caucasian peoples around herself. She under-took this mission as soon as the process of uniting the land was started. In order to spread its religion, language and culture, the Georgian state built churches in the North Caucasus, making Georgian inscriptions on their walls. The purpose of this was to Georgianize some of the peoples inhabiting the Caucasian Mountains. Most of the Kipchaks settled in Georgia were Georgianized: they adopted the Georgian religion, language and culture, and subsequently many became leading Georgian statesmen.
The Ossetians came under strong Georgian influence. In the 10th century their conversion to Christianity was fostered actively by King Giorgi of Ergris-Abkhazeti. But Christianity was not finally established in Ossetia, and for that reason in the 11th - 12th centuries secular and ecclesiastical leaders sought to consolidate Christianity by building churches and by other measures. This was a period when Georgian influence in Ossetia was spreading intensively. In Ossetia, Christianity brought with it the Georgian language and Georgian culture, and this drew the two peoples closer together. Thus, in addition to her political influence, Georgia exercised a cultural influence on her neighbours.
However, in parallel with her policy of religious toleration, Georgia carefully and consistently sought to convert other Christian denominations particularly the Gregorian Armenians, into the Chalcedon denomination.
The same policy was pursued very vigorously by the Byzantine empire in the 11th century.
This attitude to the Armenians was due to Armenia's political position. She was pressured by both Byzantium and Georgia, Along with other methods, both sides made active use of ideological means and endeavoured to strengthen their position by achieving religious unity. There were two tendencies in this clash of dogmas. Some Church-leaders maintained that there was no essential difference between the Armenians and the Orthodox Chalcedonians and considered that it was possible to unite these two Churches. Others insisted that there were fundamental distinctions between them and on these grounds contended that they could not be united.
The leadership of the Armenian Church in Kilikia was not opposed to unity with the Orthodox (Byzantine) Church. This is borne out by the Statement of Principles of the Armenian Church compiled by the Armenian patriarch Nerses in the 12th century (circa 1170) and submitted to the emperor Manuel I (Comnenos). In relation to Kilikian Armenia, Byzantium pursued the same objectives as were pursued by Georgia towards the part of Armenia annexed by her. While the emperor Manuel I attempted to consolidate his position in the Kilikian Armenian kingdom, the Armenian patriarch hoped to strengthen his own position with the assistance of the Byzantine emperor. Both considered that religious unity was one of the basic preconditions for the attainment of their aims.
Attempts to unite the Chalcedonian and Grigorian Churches were made as early as the 11th century, when in a dogmatic polemic at the court of Constantine X (Ducas) (1059- 1068) the Armenian religious leader, Jakob Kerabi, sided with the Chalcedonians. He wrote the Book of Faith, in which he showed that these two denominations could be united. A similar document was written in the 12th century by the patriarch Nerses following the talks he had with the emperor. In this document he endeavoured to prove that no fundamental difference existed between the Armenian and Chalcedonian Churches.
As we have already noted, the tendency to unite the Armenian and Georgian Churches emerged in Georgia in the 12th century.
A factor influencing the religious relations with Armenia was that there was a large number of Chalcedonian Armenians in Georgia. Moreover, these relations were influenced by the historical situation.
Initially, following the schism between the Georgian and Armenian Churches, the Georgians only defended themselves, and even the polemical Church-split between Georgia and Armenia did not affect the attitude towards the Armenians.
A representative of the Armenian clergy, the scholarly monk Sosten, went to Georgia in the 11th century to accuse the Georgian Church of heresy. In this case the Georgian Church did nothing more than defend itself against Sosten's attacks. But, after Armenia came under Georgia's political influence, the situation changed, and the Armenian clergy had to defend itself against the confessional expansion of the Georgians.
Naturally, after winning political supremacy, Georgia sought unity with the Armenians on the basis of the Chalcedonian faith. For reasons that can be easly appreciated, she endeavoured to achieve that aim cautiously. It was believed that the most desirable way was to pursuade the Armenians that their faith was ,,mis-guided".
The striving to subjugate the Armenian Church began manifesting itself in the reign of David the Builder, and an organised drive to that end was conducted in the latter half of the 12th century. This is shown by the synods that took place in the days of David the Builder and, particularly, of Queen Tamar. The Georgian-Armenian polemic was the main point of discussion.
Georgian wanted to unite the surrounding regions and peoples around herself, but this was seriously hindered by the religious particularism of the Armenians. Georgian leaders were well aware that religious unity with Armenia would create a solid foundation for the further strengthening of Georgian-Armenian political relations. But this unity were strongly resisted and they had to act with circumspection and officially pursue a policy of religious toleration.
In the first quarter of the 12th century Georgia became the strongest power in the Caucasus, while in the Near East it came forward as a rival, and also heir, to the Byzantine empire. In this situation, the Georgian kings naturally considered few of their neighbours and even members of the Byzantine imperial family as their equals. A noteworthy fact is that, while in the 11th century they regarded the receipt of Byzantine court-titles as a great honour and even sought the title of "kurapalati", David the Builder who bore the titles of "sebastos" and "paniper-sebastos" when he was a prince, renounced these titles when he ascended the throne, considering them humiliating.
In 1085 he is mentioned as a "sebastos" in 1089- 1091 he is called a "panipersebastos", but in the acts of the Ruis-Urbnisi synod, in which his father is called the "king of kings" and "caesaros" of East and West, David is mentioned by the title: "King of Abkhazians and Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, Autocrat".
Thus, after consolidating his position in Georgia, ceasing to pay tribute to the Seljuks and reuniting most of the Georgian lands, David renounced Byzantine titles and adopted the title of King of Abkhazians and Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, styling himself an autocrat.
The titles of the Georgian kings mirror the historical process of the unification of the Georgian lands and the enlargement of the Georgian kingdom. The titles of the first kings of united Georgia had the following sequence: King of Abkhazians (i. e. King of Western Georgia), King of the Kartvelians (i. e. King of Kartli and Meskheti) and then an indication of the relationship with Byzantium, the title of "kurapalat". Thus, Bagrat III was called: King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, "kurapalat ", Bagrat IV, who was also called King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, at first had the title of "kurapalati" then "novelissimus" (40s) and from the 60s onwards "sebastos" Giorgi II was also styled King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, and his title of "novelissimus" was at first replaced by the title of "sebastos" and then by that of "caesar".
A radical change in titulature is introduced in the reign of David the Builder. At first he was called King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians and bore Byzantine titles, but then these titles were dropped, and he added the title of King of the Ranians and Kakhians (which was an indication of the reunification of Hereti and Kakheti). The title of King of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians, Kakhians and Somekhians is to be seen on coins minted in David's day and on the royal standard.
The addition of the title of "King of the Armenians" ("mepe somekhta") indicates the conquest of the kingdom of Tashir - Dzorageti, whose kings were called "mepe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Ani - kingdom of the Armenian Bagratids, who bore the title of "Shahansha". The latter title should have appeared when David conquered the Ani - kingdom, but it is recorded in annals dating from the reign of King Giorgi III (1156-1184). The titles of "Shahansha" and "Sharvansha" should have appeared in the latter years of the reign of David the Builder, when he conquered Shirvan, but it is recorded only in the charter of King Giorgi III. We feel that the titles given in the charter of Giorgi III, namely, King of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, "Sharvansha" and "Shahansha" were adopted in the last years of the reign of David the Builder. That is when the word "autocrat" must have appeared. The tendency to use that title was shown by the first kings of united Georgia, an expression of this being the proud statement of the Bagrationi-family's historian that King Bagrat III "autocratically conquered the whole of the Caucasus from Jiketi to Gurgan". Although some neighbouring regions were indeed dependent upon Bagrat III, he "autocratically" ruled only a large part of Georgia. However, this tendency became real in the reign of King David, who was the first "autocratic" king (in a centralized feudal kingdom), and he bore the corresponding title early in the 12th century.
The important component of "Sword of the Messiah" also appeared in the title of the Georgian kings in the reign of King David. It is engraved in Arabic on a copper coin of David's day: "King of Kings, David, son of Giorgi, Sword of the Messiah, which expressed the policies pursued by David. By calling himself the "Sword of the Messiah" he made it clear that in his actions he had divine guidance, and that any act against the king was an act against God. This "Sword of the Messiah" was directed against internal and external enemies. In the eyes of neighbouring Christian peoples. David's expulsion of the Seljuk invaders from the Transcaucasus made him the "Sword of the Messiah" in the struggle against Muslim conquerors. This was a happy formula by which the king justified his clearly pronounced internal and external policy. The "Sword of the Messiah" was, a religious symbol of the political struggle and a weapon of the feudal class in strengthening their social and political supremacy. It was not accidental that King David caused the title "Sword of the Messiah" to be engraved on coins in Arabic. These coins were in circulation throughout the Middle East and were a splendid means of popularizing this title. It showed the Muslims that as the "Sword of the Messiah" David was the protector of Christians and to be feared by all the enemies of Christendom.
The titles adopted in the reign of King David fully mirrored the gradual growth of Georgia's international influence.
The hereditary character of the throne and the coronation-procedure were of no little importance in consolidating the autocratic powers of the king. The kings of united Georgia evidently sought to legalise the passage of the throne to their elder sons, and for that reason in most cases they crowned their sons in their lifetime. This pursued other aims as well. The prevaling coronation-procedure obviously underpinned the role and significance of the feudal autocracy. The procedure itself had evidently been laid down in the early-mediaeval period in Western Georgia, when the king received his power not only formally but in fact largely from the feudal nobility.
King David personally crowned his son Demetre, and Demetre and Giorgi III acted likewise. After the death of Giorgi III, the supreme state-council ("darbazi") consented, some hesitation, to enthrone Tamar but declared invalid after her coronation by her father and crowned her a second time. By this act the council in effect retrieved its right to crown its kings, the right to present the king the dignities of royal majesty (sword and sceptre) with its own hands. It is noteworthy that although the feudal council crowned Tamar a second time, she declared that she had received the crown first from God and then from her kin. The importance of the coronation-ceremony is shown also by the fact that in the 13th century a new coronation-procedure was instituted, under which the privileges of the feudal families in accomplishing this act were abolished. Henceforth the coronation of the king was the privilege of the heads of individual departments. For instance, the king received his sword from the "amirspasalari" (Minister of War) regardless of his lineage. The striving of the Georgian kings to cancel the old coronation-procedure and thereby instal their heirs on the throne themselves was thus a sign of the trend towards the establishment of autocratic rule.
This elevation of the royal power required appropriate ideological justification. Here assistance came from Georgian Christian ideology, which declared that the supremacy of royal authority sprang from the divine origin of the royal power and dynasty.
<
With the emergence of a class-society and the state, there appeared the legend of the "superhuman", "divine", origin. Georgia, too, emulated that example, evolving the theory of the divine origin of the Bagrationi-family. In Georgia and Armenia this family acquired political prominence, early, and various legends were created about it. The further evolution of these legends is linked with the period when the Bagrationi became monarchs of united Georgia. Sumbat Davitisdze wrote the Chronicle of the Bagrationi-Family, giving the family's history and genealogy, according to which the Georgian Bagrationi were the direct descendants of the prophet David.
This legend, as all similar legends, pursued the aim of exalting the royal family. It placed this family above others and, most important, ideologically justified the class-rule of the reigning family. At the next stage of the consolidation of the royal power, the Georgian Bagrationi proclaimed that their kingdom was under divine guidance and patronage. This dogma was in existence during the reign of King David. In his testament he stated bluntly that his kingdom had been entrusted to him by God. To quote his own words, God had helped him to rule the kingdom and sanctioned the destruction of his enemies; true, he, David, ruled the country corporeally, but it was ruled spiritually by the Lord. Since Georgia was ruled by God, anybody raising his hand against the Crown raised it against God. At this stage of the development of the state - power, in accordance with its actual position and for the purpose of consolidating that position, the personality of the king was elevated to the level of a divinity.
At the next stage, the ideological theory of elevating the royal power was further developed and, in accordance with its new variant, evolved in the reign of Queen Tamar, the Georgian kings were the "flesh of the flesh of the tree of David and Chosroes." Origin from David was now complimented with origin from the Chosroes kings of Persia. According to Queen Tamar's historian, her marriage was consummated "as befitted their Olympic majesty and royal radiance". Whereas origin from David gave the Georgian kings their "Olympic majesty", their origin from the Persian kings gave them a "royal radiance". Thus, as the Bagrationi-family was gradually elevated, legend proclaimed them as being first of divine origin and then as equal to divinity. In the reign of David the Builder the acts of the king were proclaimed as being divine acts. To this was subsequently added their origin from the Chosroes and the title "Most August".
Consciousness that the royal power was "autocratic" took root in the royal family as early as the reign of King David and was mirrored in the king's title.
roi
en Géorgie (✝ 1125)
L'Église latine le
fête, dans son martyrologe, le 24 janvier et les Églises d'Orient le 26
janvier. Il était roi d'Ibérie, c'est-à-dire la Géorgie intérieure et roi
d'Abkhazie, région maritime qui connut très tôt des communautés chrétiennes.
David multiplia les monastères qui furent des foyers culturels importants,
conservant la tradition d'Antioche, multipliant les manuscrits, transmettant
les Pères de langue syriaque. Saint David est l'un des plus grands rois de la
Géorgie. Il mourut au monastère de Guelati qui renaît depuis quelques années
après avoir été détruit durant l'occupation soviétique.
(Le roi David IV, en Géorgie dans le Caucase, a donné à son peuple le témoignage d'une foi intense, d'un grand amour de la justice et d'un grand courage contre les ennemis perses. Il édifia le célèbre monastère de Guélati où il finit ses jours.)
Guelati, centre scientifique et d’enseignement, a été fondé par David le Constructeur, l’un des plus grands rois de Géorgie et il a été considéré comme 'Nouvel Athos' et 'Nouvelle Jérusalem'. Le fondateur est enterré dans le monastère, non loin de la grande cathédrale principale de la Sainte-Vierge, dont la mosaïque exceptionnelle est sans doute le chef d'œuvre de l’art sacré en Géorgie. (site faisant partie du patrimoine culturel de l'Unesco)
Fresque du monastère de Chio-Mvghime (Karthli)
représentant David IV le Reconstructeur.
SAINT DAVID (DAVIT) IV, LE BÂTISSEUR, ROI DE GEORGIE ET D'ABKHAZETI
A la fin du 11ème siècle l'Eglise géorgienne a subi
une épreuve aux proportions physiquement et spirituellement
catastrophiques.
Le sultan seldjoukide, Jalal
al-Dawla Malik Shah (1073-1092), captura le village de
Samshvilde, emprisonna son gouvernant, Jean (Ioane) Orbeliani, fils
de Liparit, ravagea Kvemo Kartli (inférieur), et finalement captura toute la
Géorgie, en dépit des victoires isolées du roi Georges (Giorgi) II
(1072-1089). Les Géorgiens fuirent leurs maisons, craignant de se cacher dans
les montagnes et les forêts.
Tenté et profondément affligé
par les temps difficiles, la nation qui avait juré un jour son amour
inconditionnel pour le Christ commença à tomber dans le péché et la corruption.
Les gens de tous âges et tempéraments péchèrent contre Dieu et se tournèrent
vers le chemin de la perdition. Dieu manifesta sa colère envers le peuple
géorgien par l'envoi d'un terrible tremblement de terre qui dévasta leurs fêtes
pascales.
En l'an 1089, au cours de
cette période de désolation et de désespoir, le roi Georges II abdiqua, en
désignant son fils unique de seize ans, David (Davit) (plus tard
connu comme "le Restaurateur"), comme héritier du trône. Il est écrit
que le Père céleste a dit: J'ai trouvé David, mon serviteur, avec mon huile
sainte je l'ai oint (Ps. 88:19).
Le
nouveau roi couronné David prit sur lui une responsabilité énorme
pour le bien de l'Eglise. Il appuya les efforts déployés par le Concile de
Ruisi-Urbnisi pour restaurer et renforcer l'autorité de l'Eglise géorgienne et
supprimer les seigneurs féodaux et ecclésiastiques vaniteux et indignes.
Pendant le règne du roi David, les activités les plus importantes du
gouvernement furent réalisées au profit de l'Eglise. Dans le même temps, le
Concile de Ruisi-Urbnisi réaffirma le rôle essentiel de la foi orthodoxe pour
sauver le peuple géorgien du bourbier impie dans lequel il avait coulé.
Au premier rang des objectifs
du roi David au début de son règne, fut le rapatriement de ceux qui avaient fui
la Géorgie sous la domination turque. Le roi appela ses nobles et commença à
réunifier le pays. Les efforts du roi pour réunifier la Géorgie commencèrent
dans la région orientale de Kakhétie-Hereti, mais les Turcs et les seigneurs
féodaux traîtres n'étaient pas disposés à céder le pouvoir qu'ils
avaient acquis dans la région. Néanmoins, l'armée du roi David était dans les
mains de Dieu, et les Géorgiens combattirent vaillamment contre
la massive armée turque. Le roi David lui-même, se battit
comme n'importe quel autre soldat: trois de ses chevaux furent tués, mais il en
enfourcha un quatrième pour terminer le combat par une victoire fantastique. La
présence turque fut éliminée de son pays.
Bientôt, cependant,
l'intransigeant sultan seldjoukide Mehmed (Muhammad) I de Bagdad (1105-1118)
ordonna à une armée de 100.000 soldats de marcher sur la Géorgie. Quand le roi
David entendit parler de l'approche de l'ennemi, il réunit immédiatement
un groupe de quinze cents hommes et les conduisit vers Trialeti. Une bataille
commença tôt le matin, et avec l'aide de Dieu l'ennemi fut vaincu.
Simultanément, le conseiller du roi, Georges de Tchqondidi, (Giorgi Tchqondidi
était le précepteur du roi David et son plus proche conseiller). Il occupa
le poste de chancelier-procureur. Au Concile de Ruisi-Urbnisi, le roi David
introduisit une nouvelle loi, en combinant la fonction de chancelier-procureur
avec l'archevêché de Tchqondidi, épiscopat le plus influent en Géorgie.) reprit
la ville de Rustavi, et en 1115, l'armée géorgienne récupéra le ravin de la
rivière Mtkvari. Un an plus tard, les Turcs, qui avaient campé entre les villes
de Karnipori et Basiani, furent bannis du pays. Les "grandes guerres"
continuèrent, et le saint roi fut couronné de nouvelles victoires. Le fils
de David Démètre (plus tard, le vénérable Damien [Damiane]), jeune
homme distingué en "sagesse, sainteté, apparence et courage",
fut un grand atout pour son père. Le prince mena une guerre contre
Shirvan, captura Kaladzori, et retourna vers son père avec des esclaves
et de grandes richesses, le butin de guerre à cette époque. Un an plus tard,
les villages de Lore et Agarani furent joints à la Géorgie.
En dépit de ses victoires, le
roi David savait qu'il serait difficile pour sa maigre armée de
protéger les villes et les forteresses récupérés, tout en continuant à servir
comme force militaire permanente. Ainsi, il devint nécessaire d'établir
une armée permanente distincte. Le sage roi prévit de
recruter des hommes parmi les Qiptchaks, tribu du nord du Caucase, pour former
cette armée. Il connaissait bien le caractère de ces peuples, et était
convaincu qu'ils étaient courageux et expérimentés dans la guerre. En outre, la
femme de David, la reine Gurandukhti, était la fille d'Atrak, chef des
Qipchaks. Atrak accepta joyeusement la demande du roi son
gendre.
Comme un vrai diplomate,
cherchant à maintenir des relations pacifiques avec les Qiptchaks, le roi David
prit son conseiller, Georges Tchqondidi, et se rendit dans la région de
l'Ossétie au Caucase du Nord. Là, Georges Tchqondidi, "conseiller de son
maître et participant à ses grands travaux et victoires", reposa dans le
Seigneur. Suite à cela, le roi David découragé déclara que son
royaume prendrait le deuil pendant quarante jours. Mais il accomplit ce qu'il
avait prévu de faire, et sélectionna 40.000 Qiptchaks à ajouter aux cinq mille
soldats géorgiens qu'il avait déjà enrôlés. Dès ce moment, le roi David eut une
armée permanente de 45.000 hommes.
L'immense armée du roi
éradiqua finalement en permanence la présence turque dans et
autour de la Géorgie. Les Turcs vaincus retournèrent dans la honte vers leur
sultan de Bagdad, drapés de noir en signe de deuil et de défaite.
Néanmoins, le sultan Mahmoud II (1118-1131), inflexible rassembla une
coalition de pays musulmans pour attaquer la Géorgie. Le sultan convoqua le
chef arabe Durbays bin Sadaka, ordonna à son propre fils Malik (1152-1153) de
le servir, rassembla une armée de 600.000 hommes, et marcha encore une fois
vers la Géorgie.
C'était en août 1121.
Avant de partir à la bataille, le roi David inspira son armée en ces termes:
"Soldats du Christ! Si nous nous battons avec courage pour notre foi, nous
ne vaincrons pas seulement les serviteurs du Diable, mais le Diable
lui-même. Nous allons gagner la plus grande arme de guerre spirituelle quand
nous ferons une alliance avec le Dieu Tout-Puissant et le vœu que nous préférons
mourir pour Son amour plutôt que de fuir l'ennemi. Et si l'un d'entre nous veut
faire retraite, prenons des branches et bloquons l'entrée de la gorge pour l'en
empêcher. Quand l'ennemi approche, attaquons férocement! "
Aucun des soldats ne pensait
de battre en retraite. La tactique de combat superbe du roi de et les
miracles de Dieu terrifièrent l'ennemi. Comme il est écrit: "La main de
Dieu lui donna le pouvoir, et le mégalomartyr Georges le conduisit
invisiblement dans la bataille. Le roi anéantit l'ennemi impie avec sa dextre
puissante. "
La bataille de Didgori
affaiblit l'ennemi pendant de nombreuses années. L'année suivante, en 1122, le
roi David repris la capitale de Tbilissi, qui avait supporté le joug de
l'esclavage pendant quatre cents ans. Le roi revint de la ville à sa mère
patrie. En 1123 le roi David déclaré le village de Dmanissi possession
géorgienne, et donc, enfin, l'unification du pays fut complète.
Une victoire suivit une autre,
tandis que le Seigneur défendait le roi qui glorifiait son Créateur.
En 1106 le roi David avait
commencé la construction du monastère de Gelati dans l'ouest de la Géorgie, et
tout au long de sa vie, ce complexe sacré était au centre de ses efforts en
faveur de la renaissance de l'Eglise géorgienne. Le monastère de Gelati était
le plus glorieux de tous les temples de Dieu existants. Pour embellir
le bâtiment, le roi David offrit beaucoup de grands trésors qu'il avait acquis
comme butin de guerre. Puis il rassembla tous les sages, les hommes intègres,
généreux et pieux parmi ses parents et ceux de l'étranger et il établit
l'Académie théologique de Gelati. Le roi David aida beaucoup de gens dans
les églises géorgiennes tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur de son royaume. Le
roi bienveillant construisit une ambulance primitive pour les malades et
fournissait toutes les conditions nécessaires à leur rétablissement. Il
visitait les malades, les encourageait et prenait soin d'eux comme un père. Le
roi avait toujours avec lui un petit sac dans lequel il faisait l'aumône aux
pauvres.
Le roi intelligence
et bien éduqué passait son temps libre à lire les Saintes Écritures et à
l'étude des sciences. Il emportait même ses livres avec lui à la guerre,
en sollicitant l'aide des ânes et des chameaux pour transporter sa
bibliothèque. Quand il était fatigué de lire, le roi David demandait
à d'autres de lire pour lui, alors qu'il écoutait attentivement. Un des
biographes du roi se souvient: "Chaque fois que David finissait de lire
les épîtres, il mettait un signe sur la dernière page. Au bout d'un an, nous
avons compté qu'il les avait lu vingt-quatre fois. "
Le roi David était aussi un
écrivain exemplaire. Ses "Cantiques du repentir" sont égaux en mérite
aux œuvres des plus grands écrivains de l'Eglise.
Ce roi géorgien très
vaillant, puissant et juste quitta ses héritiers par une confession brillante
quand il mourut. Il rappela tous les péchés qu'il avait commis avec des
lamentations profonde et implora le Dieu Tout-Puissant pour [obtenir] le
pardon.
Le roi David termina son testament en 1125, et dans
la même année, il abdiqua et désigna son fils Démètre pour être son
successeur. Il confia à son fils une épée, bénit son avenir, et lui
souhaita de nombreuses années en bonne santé et au service du Seigneur. Le roi
reposa paisiblement en Christ à l'âge de 53 ans.
Saint David le restaurateur fut enterré à l'entrée du monastère
de Gelati. Son testament fut sculpté dans la pierre de sa tombe: Ceci est
mon repos pour toujours et à jamais, ici j'habiterai, car je l'ai choisie
[Sion] (Ps. 131:15).
Ô Seigneur, les miracles que tu accomplis par Ton roi orthodoxe David, sont incompréhensibles aux hommes. Tu l'as glorifié pour l'Amour de Ton Nom quand ses victoires brillantes rachetèrent la terre géorgienne des infidèles sarrasins. Tu glorifias saint David par des actes miraculeux et par ces actes accorde à nos âmes grande miséricorde!
Ô Seigneur, les miracles que tu accomplis par Ton roi orthodoxe David, sont incompréhensibles aux hommes. Tu l'as glorifié pour l'Amour de Ton Nom quand ses victoires brillantes rachetèrent la terre géorgienne des infidèles sarrasins. Tu glorifias saint David par des actes miraculeux et par ces actes accorde à nos âmes grande miséricorde!
Version française de Claude
Lopez-Ginisty
d'après
Archpriest Zakaria Machitadze
Lives of the Georgian Saints
Saint
Herman of Alaska Brotherhood
Platina, California, USA/2006
SOURCE : http://viedessaintsdegeorgie.blogspot.ca/2014/02/saint-david-davit-iv-le-batisseur-roi.html
Blessed David IV the King of Georgia
At the end of the 11th century
the Georgian Church underwent a trial of physically and spiritually
catastrophic proportions.
The Seljuk sultan, Jalal al-Dawlah Malik Shah (1073-1092), captured the village of Samshvilde, imprisoned its leader, Ioane Orbeliani, son of Liparit, ravaged Kvemo (Lower) Kartli, and finally captured all of Georgia, despite the isolated victories of King Giorgi II (1072-1089). The fearful Georgians fled their homes to hide in the mountains and forests.
Tempted and deeply distressed by the difficult times, the nation that had once vowed its unconditional love for Christ began to fall into sin and corruption. People of all ages and temperaments sinned against God and turned to the path of perdition. God manifested His wrath toward the Georgian people by sending a terrible earthquake that devastated their Paschal celebrations.
In the year 1089, during this period of devastation and despair, King Giorgi II abdicated, designating his sixteen-year-old only son, Davit (later known as “the Restorer”), heir to the throne. It is written that the Heavenly Father said: I have found David My servant, with My holy oil have I annointed him (Ps. 88:19).
The newly crowned King Davit took upon himself enormous responsibility for the welfare of the Church. He supported the efforts of the Council of Ruisi-Urbnisi to restore and reinforce the authority of the Georgian Church and suppress the conceited feudal lords and unworthy clergymen. During King Davit’s reign, the government’s most significant activities were carried out for the benefit of the Church. At the same time, the Council of Ruisi-Urbnisi reasserted the vital role of the Orthodox Faith in rescuing the Georgian people from the godless mire into which they had sunk.
Foremost among King Davit’s goals at the beginning of his reign was the repatriation of those who had fled Georgia during the Turkish rule. The king summoned his noblemen and began to reunify the nation. The king’s efforts to reunify Georgia began in the eastern region of Kakheti-Hereti, but the Turks and traitorous feudal lords were unwilling to surrender the power they had gained in the area. Nevertheless, King Davit’s army was in God’s hands, and the Georgians fought valiantly against the massive Turkish army. King Davit himself fought like any other soldier: three of his horses were killed, but he mounted a fourth to finish the fight with a fantastic victory. The Turkish presence was eliminated from his country.
Soon, however, the uncompromising Seljuk sultan Mehmed (Muhammad) I of Baghdad (1105-1118) ordered an army of one hundred thousand soldiers to march on Georgia. When King Davit heard of the enemy’s approach, he immediately assembled a force of fifteen hundred men and led them towards Trialeti. A battle began in the early morning, and with God’s help the enemy was defeated. Simultaneously, the king’s adviser, Giorgi of Chqondidi, (Giorgi of Chqondidi was King Davit’s teacher and closest adviser. He held the post of chancellor-procurator. At the council of Ruisi-Urbnisi, King Davit introduced a new law, combining the office of chancellor-procurator with the archbishopric of Chqondidi, the most influential episcopate in Georgia.) recaptured the town of Rustavi, and in 1115 the Georgian army recovered the ravine of the Mtkvari River. One year later, the Turks, who had been encamped between the towns of Karnipori and Basiani, were banished from the country. The “Great Wars” continued, and the holy king was crowned with new victories. Davit’s son Demetre (later the venerable Damiane), a young man distinguished in “wisdom, holiness, appearance and courage,” was a great asset to his father. The prince led a war on Shirvan, captured Kaladzori, and returned to his father with slaves and great riches, the spoils of war in those days. One year later, the villages of Lore and Agarani were rejoined to Georgia.
In spite of his victories, King Davit knew that it would be difficult for his meager army to protect the recovered cities and fortresses, while continuing to serve as a permanent military force. Thus it became necessary to establish a separate, permanent standing army. The wise king planned to draft men from among the Qipchaks, a northern Caucasian tribe, to form this army. He was well acquainted with the character of these people, and confident that they were brave and seasoned in war. Furthermore, Davit’s wife, Queen Gurandukhti, was a daughter of Atrak, the Qipchaks’ ruler. Atrak joyfully agreed to the request of his son-in-law, the king.
As a true diplomat seeking to maintain peaceful relations with the Qipchaks, King Davit took his adviser, Giorgi of Chqondidi, and traveled to the region of Ossetia in the northern Caucasus. There Giorgi of Chqondidi, an “adviser to his master and participant in his great works and victories,” reposed in the Lord. Following this, the dispirited King Davit declared that his kingdom would grieve for forty days. But he accomplished what he had set out to do, and selected forty thousand Qipchaks to add to the five thousand Georgian soldiers he had already enlisted. From that point on King Davit had a standing army of forty-five thousand men.
The king’s enormous army finally uprooted the Turkish presence in and around Georgia permanently. The defeated Turks returned in shame to their sultan in Baghdad, draped in black as a sign of grief and defeat. Nevertheless, the unyielding sultan Mahmud II (1118-1131) rallied a coalition of Muslim countries to attack Georgia. The sultan summoned the Arab leader Durbays bin Sadaka, commanded his own son Malik (1152-1153) to serve him, gathered an army of six hundred thousand men, and marched once more towards Georgia.
It was August of 1121. Before heading off to battle, King Davit inspired his army with these words: “Soldiers of Christ! If we fight bravely for our Faith, we will defeat not only the devil’s servants, but the devil himself. We will gain the greatest weapon of spiritual warfare when we make a covenant with the Almighty God and vow that we would rather die for His love than escape from the enemy. And if any one of us should wish to retreat, let us take branches and block the entrance to the gorge to prevent this. When the enemy approaches, let us attack fiercely!”
None of the soldiers thought of retreating. The king’s stunning battle tactics and the miracles of God terrified the enemy. As it is written, “The hand of God empowered him, and the Great-martyr George visibly led him in battle. The king annihilated the godless enemy with his powerful right hand.”
The battle at Didgori enfeebled the enemy for many years. The following year, in 1122, King Davit recaptured the capital city of Tbilisi, which had borne the yoke of slavery for four hundred years. The king returned the city to its mother country. In 1123 King Davit declared the village of Dmanisi a Georgian possession, and thus, at last, unification of the country was complete.
One victory followed another, as the Lord defended the king who glorified his Creator.
In 1106 King Davit had begun construction of Gelati Monastery in western Georgia, and throughout his life this sacred complex was the focus of his efforts on behalf of the revival of the Georgian Church. Gelati Monastery was the most glorious of all the existing temples to God. To beautify the building, King Davit offered many of the great treasures he had acquired as spoils of war. Then he gathered all the wise, upright, generous, and pious people from among his kinsmen and from abroad and established the Gelati Theological Academy. King Davit helped many people in Georgian churches both inside and outside his kingdom. The benevolent king constructed a primitive ambulance for the sick and provided everything necessary for their recovery. He visited the infirm, encouraging them and caring for them like a father. The king always took with him a small pouch in which he carried alms for the poor.
The intelligent and well-lettered king spent his free time reading the Holy Scriptures and studying the sciences. He even carried his books with him to war, soliciting the help of donkeys and camels to transport his library. When he tired of reading, King Davit had others read to him, while he listened attentively. One of the king’s biographers recalls, “Each time Davit finished reading the Epistles, he put a mark on the last page. At the end of one year, we counted that he had read them twenty-four times.”
King Davit was also an exemplary writer. His “Hymns of Repentance” are equal in merit to the works of the greatest writers of the Church.
This most valiant, powerful, and righteous Georgian king left his heirs with a brilliant confession when he died. It recalled all the sins he had committed with profound lamentation and beseeched the Almighty God for forgiveness.
King Davit completed his will in 1125, and in the same year he abdicated and designated his son Demetre to be his successor. He entrusted his son with a sword, blessed his future, and wished him many years in good health and service to the Lord. The king reposed peacefully at the age of fifty-three.
St. Davit the Restorer was buried at the entrance to Gelati Monastery. His final wish was carved in the stone of his grave: This is My rest for ever and ever; here I will dwell, for I have chosen her (Ps. 131:15).
David IV, the Builder (1089- 1125), inherited a bitter legacy: the country lay divided and in ruins, and its population had been drastically long and unequal struggle; people had been driven out of their homes and were hiding in the mountains and forests.
David pursued a purposeful policy, taking no unconsider-ed step. He was determined to bring order to the land, subjugate the class-enemy, bridle the unsubmissive secular and ecclesias-tical feudal lords, centralise the state-administration, form a new type of army that would stand up better to the Seljuk military organization, and then go over to a methodical offensive with the aim of expelling the Seljuks first from Georgia and then from the whole of the Transcaucasus.
Internal policy. First and foremost, it was imperative to clear the Seljuks out Kartli proper and give the surviving population the possibility of returning to their homes and restore the dislocated economy.
King David began reforming his army, which had been disorganized and demoralized by innumerable setbacks. He mustered units consisting mainly of Crown-peasants and small gentry. Employing surprise tactics, these troops attacked the Seljuk settlements and gradually pushed the invaders out of "Shida" (Inner) Kartli. "And the people began returning to their homes", writes the chronicler.
King David himself and his closest associates were well aware that, before they could launch large-scale operations against the Seljuks, it was vital to ensure peace at home, in other words, to subordinate the unsubmissive nobility to the throne. Here again, the House of Baghvashi, in particular the "eristavi" of Kldekari, Liparit IV, were conspicuous among the recalcitrants.
As we have already noted, Bagrat HI and his direct successors had futilely endeavoured to bring this strong feudal family to submission. During the early years of David IV's reign the domains of Liparit IV consisted of Trialeti, Kldekari and abjoi-ning lands. According to the chronicler, Liparit was disloyal to his sovereign; indeed, in 1093 David learned that Liparit was conspiring against him. Liparit was imprisoned, but two years later he was released on oath of fidelity to the king. But soon afterwards, David was informed of his new intrigues. Liparit was seized and then exiled to Byzantium. The "Eristav-ship" of Kldekari was abolished and incorporated within the Grown-possessions. Trialeti's significant strategic location made it immensely important to the unity of Georgia. That explains the efforts first of the Egris-Abkhasian kings and then of the kings of united Georgia to gain control of that province. The abolition of that strong "eristavship" and its incorporation within the Crown-domains greatly undermined the opposition and gave the king a stronger hand.
Moreover, David waged a long and unremitting struggle against the feudal lord, Dzagan Abuletisdze, brother of the Bishop Modistos. What happened to Liparit, Dzagan and others evidently served as a warning.
The efforts to centralise state-power could not be confined to the struggle with secular feudal lords. The question of the place, held by the Church in the state-system, was also of the utmost importance. Georgia's final unification and the establishment of a single administration necessarily implied the Church's subordination to the state.
At one stage, as we have shown, the Georgian Church had supported the Georgian kings in their efforts to unite the country, for it felt that such unity would give it political control of all the churches in Georgia and of their possessions. Moreover, it was believed that this would help to assert the influence of the Mtskheta Patriarch over the West Georgian church. As a result of the steps taken by the kings of West Georgia, the West Georgian had been subordinated to the Mtskheta Cathedral. But, subsequently, the strengthened Church began to demand immunity, which it finally obtained early in the 11th century. In the course of the 10th and 11th centuries, after the occupancy of high positions had become hereditary., the feudal aristocracy gradually acquired increasing power in the Georgian Church.
With its power enhanced, it no longer suited the Church to have a strong secular monarch endeavouring to keep it in the status of a subordinate ally. Of special significance in this context was the establishment of the Patriarchate in Georgia in the 1120s and the attempts of Giorgi Mtatsmindeli to uproot the practice of hereditary appointments to high office in the Church. But the 1060s, when Giorgi Mtatsmindeli came to Georgia on the invitation of King Bagrat IV and sought to introduce innovations, proved to be an unpropitious time for measures of this kind, and Bagrat IV, who was assisted by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli failed to purge the Church and install his supporters in high ecclesiastical office. The situation continued to deteriorate in the period from the 1060s to the close of the century; most of the high posts in the Church were taken over by the feudal aristocracy, and the alliance of the ecclesiastical and secular nobility grew stronger and was directed against the throne. Early in the 11th century the bishops of Bana and Atskuri sided with invading Byzantium-forces. During the first years of King David IV's reign the big feudal lord, Dzagani rose against the king with the support of his brother, Bishop Modistos. The monasteries and churches opposed the central state-power; King David took determined steps against them.
In describing the situation in the Church, historical sources give us a very unsavoury picture. A system under which posts in the Church were sold was evidently widespread in the rnid-11th century (this system had been attacked by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli), but towards the end of that century the situation worsened still further. It is possible that in their desire to justify the harsh measures taken by David, historical sources somewhat exaggerate, but by and large the situation was serious and it was very difficult to fight the Church. However, it is riot to be excluded that the king had supporters in the Church. In those ays there was a strong group of progressive Church-leaders on whom David could rely. They included the "mtsignobar-ukhutsesi" Giorgi, who was a close associate of the king,- the Patriarch Ioann, the king's confessor Yevstrati and the monk Arseni.
David decided to enforce a radical reform with the purpose of subordinating the Church to the state. This was vital for the final centralization of state-power. But before this* reform could be put into effect, undesirable hierarchs had to be Swept from the highest posts in the state. The king was well aware that this would not be an easy task, and he: therefore laid his preparations carefully, He gradually enlisted more supporters, attracting to his side prominent Church-leaders working outside Georgia, correspondingly moulded public opinion and, finally, in 1103 convened an ecclesiastical congress, known as the Ruis-Urbnisi- synod.
David's supporters won an overwhelming victory at this synod, taking over all the undesirable highest Church-offices. As a non-ecclesiastic, the king formally had no authority to intervene in Church-affairs, but by placing his supporters in key Church-offices he made considerable headway in actually subordinating the Church to the state, and the Church had to reconcile itself to this fact. However, this triumph had to be consolidated and the power of the state over the Church finally asserted. For this purpose David combined two offices: courtial ("mtsignobar-tukhutsesi") and clerical (Bishop of Chkondidi). This was a significant step towards centralizing state-power.
At the Georgian court there 'had long been the office of head of the royal chancellery - "mtsignobartukhutsesi". This office had always been held by a monk. The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was a privy-counsellor of the king, and was devoted to the Crown by virtue of the character of his office.
The higher civilian officials at the royal court were given conditional possession of estates and, naturally, sought to turn these estates into hereditary property together with the office that went with them. The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was a monk and had no ambitions of this kind.
The Bishop of Chkondidi was similarly loyal to the Crown. The Ckhondidi Cathedral was founded in the first half of the 10th century by Giorgi, king of Egris-Abkhazeti. As the other cathedrals founded in Western Georgia by the kings of Egris-Abkhazeti, this cathedral was set up to counter the Greek Cathedrals, and, by virtue of this, it was a mainstay of the central state-power against external and internal enemies. The bishops of Chkondidi enjoyed the greatest prestige among the bishops of Western Georgia and they had been faithful to the throne for two centuries. Because of the Chkondidi bishop's considerable influence in Church affairs, David the Builder united the two abovernentioned offices in one person soon after the Ruisi-Urbnisi synod, and created the institution of "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli". The authority of the Chkondidi bishop was thus greatly enhanced in the Church, and whereas the "mtsignobartukhutsesi", the head of the royal Chancellery, was the most powerful figure in the state-apparatus after the king, the "chkondideli" became the highest dignitary in the Church after the patriarch. Through the "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli", the king was thus able to interfere in the affairs of the Church and dictate his will to it.
This situation existed permanently throughout the period while the single Georgian feudal monarchy was in existence (with the exception of short intervals). This was further evidence of the timeliness and expediency of this step in the conditions obtaining at the time.
Since it was clear from the very beginning that this step was designed to strengthen the central state-power, it naturally evoked the disaffection of the reactionary feudal nobility. An echo of the struggle over this issue between the king and the reactionary nobles was quite possibly the fact that in the period from 1118 (after the death of the first "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli" Giorgi) to 1125 the Bishop of Chkondidi had no favour with the king. After the death of the "mtsignobartukhutsesi" Giorgi, David IV appointed his nephew Svimon, Bishop of Bedia and Alaverdi, to the post but secured his enthronement as the Bishop of Chkondidi only in 1125.
Thus, as a result of these steps, the Georgian Church was subordinated to state-control, and instructions on divine service and on internal arrangement . were received from the court. Moreover, the top-dignitaries of the Church - the patriarch, the fathers superior of monasteries, and so on - took part in the affairs of the supreme state-council, the "Darbazi". At the same time, the king showed considerable concern for churches and monasteries, built new churches, granted estates to them, gave them complete immunity from taxation, and so forth. These considerable benefits to the Church could be granted by the king of a country that was strong politically and economically.
The subordination of the Church was of immense significance in that it strengthened the state-system as a whole. The Church-reforms were followed by substantial changes in the state-administration, changes that strengthened the Georgian state and the centralized power of the king.
The measure taken by King David to centralize the state-power were not confined to establishing the office of "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli". David the Builder led the Georgian feudal state to a new road of development. Quite naturally, this radical remounding of the state-system entailed changes in the rights and duties of other categories of officials.
An integral system of administration began to take shape together with Georgia's unification and the creation of a single feudal monarchy. Evidently, much remained in this system from .. the early Georgian feudal states, but basically the administrative apparatus was "formed along new lines.
The institution of the office of "vaziri" was one of the most important measures in the reform of the administrative apparatus:
In Georgian historical sources "vaziris" are mentioned only from the 12th century onwards, but it is assumed that all the officials("mtsignobartukhutsesi, "mandaturtukhutsesi", "mechurchletukhutsesi" and so on), who were later called "vaziri", had existed in Georgian since remote times and were known as "elders" ("ukhutsesi") of individual departments. After the united Georgian feudal monarchy was formed, new departments were set up and some of the "ukhutsesis" became directly linked to the bureaucratic apparatus, in which they were department-heads. In the 12th-l3th centuries some, who handled matters of vital significance to the state, were given the rank of "vaziri". The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was the first of the "ukhutsesis" to receive the rank of "vaziri" - the "msachurt-ukhutsesi" was the last.
The "mtsignobartukhutsesi" was elevated to the rank of "vaziri" by David the Builder with the purpose of placing him above all the other officials of the court. This rank was later received by other "ukhutsesis".
The reform of the judiciary was one of the most important reforms enforced by David with the aim of recognizing the administration,
Prior to David, all court proceedings were directed by the king and all cases coming up before the supreme court had to be tried personally by the king. At an earlier stage there was evidently justification for this simple court procedure. But with the enlargement of the Georgian kingdom, the growth of the administrative apparatus and the intensification of central power, this traditional court-procedure was no longer consonant with the new situation. The condition of the peasants deteriorated as the Georgian feudal state grew stronger; they were brutally oppressed by the state, the landowners and the officials, and this led to increasing resistance from the, masses. This situation required a reform of the judiciary and the creation of an organ that would be more in keeping with the requirements of the times.
In Georgia the supreme court of appeal was the "Saajo kari" (the court of petitions), which was presided over by the king himself. King David appointed a "mtsignobartukhutsesi" to head the "Saajo kari". With two "mtsignobaris" (notaries public) the latter precided over this court.
The "Saajo kari" safeguarded internal law and order. To quote King David's historian, its purpose was "to protect the oppressed and humiliated". In a feudal state there were innumerable pretexts for violence and injustice. The oppressors were the big feudal lords, the "eristavs" and their myrmidons, tax-collectors, tenants, customs-officials, and so on. Needless to say, the oppressed were "protected" in the interests of the feudal state-power.
The chief function of the "Saajo kari" was to combat feudal anarchy and safeguard state-interests; it protected the interests of the king and his social mainstay from the "mtavars" and, particularly, from the oppressed people.
The work of the judiciary was supervised by the king himself, who guided it in the manner required by state-interests, The institution of informer, set up by David, was of no little importance in strengthening and centralising the power of the Georgian state, The king had informers at the courts of the big feudal lords, in the churches and monasteries, in his own army, in the Seljuk hordes roaming Georgia and also in neighbouring regions. He had informers even at the courts of neighbouring kingdoms. The espionage-system and well organized shadowing in and outside the kingdom kept the king informed of everything around him.
The espionage-system in all important internal and external affairs acquired special importance at this time because this institution was well developed and widely used in the states ruled by the Seljuks.
The organization of the army was of particularly great significance in the history of the Georgian state. On account of the long and devastating wars against the Seljuks. Georgia lost much of her military strength. The general decline of economic opportunities and the diminution of the population led to a reduction of the army's numerical strength. The waning of the royal power, the growth of the power of the feudal lords, particularly in the reign of Giorgi II, undermined discipline in the feudal army and disorganized it. The army had to be reorganized and trained, and discipline had to be tightened. Moreover, the military organization of the Seljuks had to be taken into account because they were the foe at this stage.
As King David's historian notes, the king had only a small contingent of staunch troops. Most of the army was demoralised, the soldiers believing that the Seljuks were invincible. Discipline fell to the extent that the soldiers spent their time in idle pursuints. King David strictly forbade any entertainment in the units, tightened control and infiltrated informers into the army.
He mustered his most faithful troops and formed a bodyguard, "mona-spa", which took part in the most important and difficult operations. The "mona-spa" was entirely dependent on the king and had no bonds whatever with the feudal nobility. The king personally directed the training and equipment of his troops. Control was strengthened over the feudal volunteer-forces and this, together with the other measures instituted to centralize the state-power, ensured order among these forces as well.
David divided the entire Georgian army into three main parts. One, as we have noted, consisted of the royal bodyguard, the second were the garrisons of towns and fortress, and the third consisted of the main body of troops, which, King David's historian writes, "were constantly at war, winter and summer".
These measures ensured the mobilization of the country's entire military potential. David began his struggle against the Seljuks with small raids against nomads wandering in Georgia. These operations were led by the king himself. He inspired the troops by personal example, encouraged those who distinguished themselves and punished cowards (they were dressed in women's clothes and paraded in front of all the troops). A well-organized, disciplined and trained army began pressing the Seljuks and in the period from the beginning of the 12th century to 1118 almost the whole of Georgia was cleared of the Turkish hordes. But this was not enough: the liberated lands had to be solidly consolidated. Moreover, King David saw that the army was not strong enough to fulfil his plans, and that, because of the man-power-shortage, the required number of troops could not be raised.
In addition, the uneceasing efforts to expel the Seljuks from Georgia prevented the peasants from working the land with considerable loss to the economy. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Georgian army consisted of feudal volunteers, or which reason it was not always possible for the entire army to respond to the summons of the king. True, most of the recalcitrant feudal lords were brought into line by the measures instituted by David, but this state of affairs had to be sustained to which end the king's forces had to be numerically stronger than the forces of any individual feudal lord. The country needed a standing-army, but this the economy of feudal Georgia could not ensure at the time. King David IV solved this problem very circumspectly and effectively. He resettled a Kipchak tribe of 40. 000 families from the Northern Caucasus in Georgia. The settlers were given plots of land and also summer-and winter-pastures, and every family was obligated to provide one soldier with a horse and weapons. This 40,000 strong Kipchak-army was entirely dependent on the king, with no ties with the feudal lords, and this gives the king considerable advantages. David did not accidentally select the Kipchak. They were well known in Georgia as good fighting-men who demanded little for themselves. Further, the Georgian royal court had ties of kinship with the Kipchak: King David was married to the daughter of the Kipchak chief, Otrok, called Ataraka Sharaganisdze in Georgian chronicles. In addition, the Georgian court knew that the rising power of Kiev Rus was pressing and driving the Kipchaks out of the lands they had earlier conquered reducing them to great hordship.
AH these circumstances influenced the king's choice. He negotiated with the Kipchaks and, in 1118, upon reaching agreement, set out for the Daryal Ravine at the head of his troops, accompanied by the 'mtsignobartukhutsesi" Giorgi, to organize their resettlement personally. But the Ossetian kingdom, with which the Kipchaks were at war, lay between Georgia and the Kipchak-domains. The Ossetians refused to let them pass across their country. But when King David arrived, the Ossetian kings went to him and "sank to their knees in submission". King David got the two sides to conclude peace, occupied all the fortresses along the road the Kipchaks were to pass and ensured their unhindered resettlement.
They were settled in different regions of Georgia. Some were settled in Inner Kartli, where most of the population had been exterminated by the Seljuks, others were given land along the border of Northern Armenia and Hereti, where part of their duties was to fortify and guard the state-boundary.
They were quickly assimilated in Georgia. They adopted Christianity and the Georgian language, went over to a sedentary way of life and gradually mixed with the local inhabitants. But some later left Georgia.
In addition to receiving land they were, by order of the king, divided into small detachments that constantly raided enemy-territory. This brought them a large income in the shape of booty.
The resettlement of the Kipchaks and the formation of a standing army greatly enchanced Georgia's military strength. This was evidently what incensed by the official historian.
The new mercenary force had to help consolidate earlier successes and carry out David's further plans for a broad offensive against the Seljuks in the Transcaucasus (Armenia, Shirvan, Ran). It must be noted that a military reform, which led to the formation of a standing-army wholly dependent on the ventral authority, had been enforced by the Seljuks in the latter half of the 11th century. One of the reasons including King David to form a standing-army of his own was, quite possibly, that he wanted to build up a military force that could match the new organization of the Seljuks.
In addition to the 40,000 Kipchaks, the king had a standing-army of 20,000 Georgians; consequently, his army numbered 60,000 troops. Moreover, when necessary he enlisted mercenaries from among the Ossetians, the Daghestan-highlanders, the Kurds and other peoples.
The resettlement of the Kipchaks was unquestionably a measure of immense state-significance and yielded positive results, but it would be wrong, of course, to attribute Georgia's successes in the reign of King David, particularly the establishment of internal order, mainly to foreigners serving in the Georgian army.
Besides its many positive aspects, the resettlement of the Kipchaks had negative aspects: it was dangerous to rely entirely on the Kipchaks, who were accustomed to a nomadic way of life. Moreover, it was habitual for them to serve as mercenaries in the armies of different states, and also to defect to the enemy. Although King David gave them land, thereby inducing them to adopt a sedetary life and providing them with the incentive of defending that life, they nevertheless gave him plenty of trouble. Time and again they betrayed him, even going so far as to plot his assassination.
The Kipchaks were resettled in 1118, when most of Georgia had been cleared of the Seljuks and order had been established in the country. State-reforms had been put into effect at the very beginning of the 12th century, and the reform of the army was conducted at the same time. The Kipchaks were resettled later, and only because these troops were needed by David for the foreign conquests begun by him in the early 1120s. The Kipchak like the Ossetian, Lezghin, Kurd and other mercenaries, were in effect auxiliary-troops. The permanent Kipchak cavalry was never the backbone of the army. Its core consisted of the royal guards and the Georgian feudal units. At the Didgori-battle. there were 15, 000 Kipchak in Georgian army of 40, 000. The burnt of the battle was borne by Georgian troops. After the army-reform, the Georgian army thus consisted of the royal guards ("monaspa") numbering 5,000 horsemen, 60,000 regular troops, the feudal contingents and mercenary-units (formed when necessary). This organization of the army created by David remained practically unchanged throughout the 12th century.
King David enforced a series of measures to subordinate local authorities entirely to the central government. Integrated Georgia was formed through the unification of several historical Georgian regions. At the time this unification was achieved each region had its own system of administration. In turn, the kingdoms of Kakheti, Hereti, South and West Georgia had been formed as a result of the unification of smaller Georgian provinces. Each of these provinces was incorporated in the united kingdom with its own administrative system, for which reason united Georgia required not only the subordination of all the political units to the throne but also the establishment of a uniform system of state-administration. This could not be achieved at once, but ultimately the establishment of that system was decisive for the country's final unification.
The first steps in that direction had been taken by Bagrat III, the first king of united Georgia, when he took the kings of Kakheti and Hereti captived and appointed his own "eristavs" to govern these lands. However, regarding to the ruling families, measures of this kind did not fundamentally change the situation. As I. Javakhishvili pointed out, only rulers were changed, with the old system of administration rarely undergoing modification, it was still necessary to abide by long-standing traditions, to keep intact local creatures and distinctions. Indeed, there was generally little appreciation of the need for a centralized government to consolidate the country's unity. The main thing as that large resources were needed to fight the traditional forms administration, and this was what Bagrat III did not have. In the epoch of feudalism, the provincial system of administration was not eradicated entirely, and, even after the measures intimated by King David, the administration was based not only on the departmental but also on the provincial principle. Nothing more could be expected in feudal times. The provincial system of administration was never abolished entirely in feudal states: this held true at subsequent stages of development. But the subordination of key-departments to the supreme authority was attainable in centralized feudal monarchies. In the reign of David military affairs, finances, the court and other key-state-departments were subordinated to the king's "vaziri", the "mtsignobartukhutsesi Chkondideli".
The great political significance and timeliness of David's reforms are borne out by the fact that throughout the subsequent existence of the united Georgian state the administration remained in the form given to it by David.
King David's foreign policy. As we have noted earlier, the power of the king of Georgia did not range east of the Likhi Range. When he began to centralize the state-power. David's first step was to rally loyal strata of the population around himself.
Before beginning his large-scale campaign against the Seljuks, he had taken steps to drive the Turks out of Georgia. He led small detachments in raids against the Seljuks settled in Kartli. The population gradually returned to their homes, and the Seljuk nomads could no longer winter in Kartli.
These raids continued unabated for four years. Sultan Malik-hah died in 1092. This was a landmark in the land of the Great Seljuks, and it was specially noted by King David's historian. The situation in the Seljuk-kingdom had grown extremely complication in the last years of Malik Shah's reign, the first signs of the kingdom's disintegration being the struggle for the throne among the sultan's heirs. The internal conflicts gradually mounted. Nizam-al-Mulk, the vazir and the sultan's chief lieutenant, was assassinated in 1902; the death of the sultan himself remained shrouded in mystery. The Ismailite sect stepped up its struggle, the khalif took increasingly hostile action against the sultan, the class-struggle grew in intensity, and individual provinces began to secede from the kingdom of the Great Seljuks.
These difficulties created favourable opportunities for Georgia to strike effectively at the Turks.
By that time Georgia's international standing had improved in yet another respect. At the synod in Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II proclaimed commencement of the crusades. Two years later Europe's feudal chivalry reached Asia Minor, seized Edessa, forming their first' state, the duchy of Edessa, and overrunning the whole region of Antioch.
King David was evidently well-informed of all this and duly assessed the situation. Relying on his successes against the great feudal lords and the Seljuks entrenched in Georgia, he ceased paying tribute to the sultan in 1097. Translated into diplomatic language, this was a declaration of war, but the sultan did not respond to this challenge. Georgia was freed of the large and shameful tribute, which David's father, Giorgi II, had regarded as salvation for his people.
King David's historian was conversant with the complicated situation that had taken shape around Georgia and which King David skilfully utilised. He saw the bond between Georgia's internal situation and international developments. He linked the Georgian king's growing power and the cessation of the payment of tribute to the Seljuks with the capture of Antioch and Ierusalem by the Crusaders.
True, the Seljuks staunchly resisted the Crusaders, who had invaded Asia Minor, and in the 11th century their position in the Transcaucasus was very weak, for by that time the Crusaders were mainly fighting the sultans of Rum and other domains of the kingdom of the Great Seljuks. However, the invasion of that large force in the Middle East was a factor of great significance, and it was not accidental that King David’s historian made special note of the seizure of Antioch and Jerusalem by the “Frangs," i. e., the crusaders.
Georgia's international standing in those years was unquestionably due mainly to the weakening of the Iranian Seljuk state, but there were good grounds for the Georgian assessment of the crusades.
After the Seljuks had been driven out of Kartli proper, David the Builder was faced with the problem of reuniting the Georgian lands outside the Georgian kingdom. Before attacking the Turks all along the line it was necessary to mobilise all of Georgia's forces.
David's first objective was the capture of Kakheti and Hereti. In 1101 he took the fortress of Zedazeni. Before marching into Kakheti and Hereti he cleared the way for victory by rallying his supporters in that region. A large group of Hereti nobles ("didebulis") seized Aghsartan, king of Kakheti and Hereti, and turned him over to King David, after which the latter occupied Hereti and Kakheti.
The neighbouring Muslim sovereigns could not reconcile themselves to the incorporation of Kakheti and Hereti in Georgia. With the emir of Gandza at their head, they marched against Georgia. Part of the population of Kakheti evidently sided with the invaders. In a fiercely fought battle near Ertsukhi, King David defeated and pushed back the enemy, and Hereti-Kakheti was finally incorporated within Georgia.
After the reunification of Kakheti-Hereti, the Seljuks were still in possession of the cities of Tbilisi and Rustavi and the whole of Lower Kartli, The campaign opened with an offensive against Lower Kartli, where the Seljuks were still roaming. The ultimate objective of the campaign was to liberate Tbilisi, where the enemy's main forces were concentrated. But before that objective could be achieved, the southern approaches to the city had to be taken. In 1110 Georgian troops captured Samshvilde. The loss of that fortresstown was a heavy blow to the Seljuks, and they were compelled to leave the abjoining territory. The Georgians then took the fortress of Dzerna. A counter-attack by the sultan's troops was repulsed. The fortress of Rustavi fell in 1115.
At the same time there was fighting on the western and eastern boundaries of Georgia. In 1116 the Seljuks were expelled from Tao, and in 1117 David marched against Asat and Shota, rulers of the fortress of Gishi (in Southern Hereti) and sons of Grigol, taking them prisoner and consummating the reunifica-fion of Hereti. In 1118 the Georgian troops routed the Seljuks wintering on the banks of the Arak and in the same year they took the fortresses of Lore and Agarani, completing the reunification of "Kvemo" Kartli. But Tbilisi and Dmanisi were still in the hands of the Turks.
The Tashiri Kvirikids (a beranch of the Armenian Bagratids) had been making inroads in "Kvemo" Kartli since the close of the 9th century. Taking advantage of the weakening of the Ani-kingdom of the Bagratids, Gurgen, a brother of the Armenian king, Sumbat II (977 - 989), founded a kingdom in Tashiri with the capital at Samshvilde. The Georgian Bagrationis (Gvaram "mampali") fought the Tashiri Kvirikids, and in the 1060s King Bagrat IV took Samshvilde, following which the fortress of Lore was made the capital of the kingdom. But the situation was such that Bagrat IV was unable to retain Samshvilde and the town was occupied by the Seljuks. David the Builder regained possession of Samshvilde only in 1110, while in 1118 this kingdom was abolished with the capture of Lore. The significance of the reunification of Lore was not only political but also strategic: the Georgian king was now in control of the road leading from the south to Eastern Georgia and Tbilisi. This cut the Muslims off from the southern approaches to Tbilisi.
With his position thus strengthened, David the Builder began a general offensive against the Seljuks.
His historian gives a laconic but extremely vivid picture of David's military tactics. With Seljuk spies watching every movement of the Georgian army, the king moved his main forces into Western Georgia in order to delude them. This occurred, for instance in 1120. The king moved to Western Georgia and, when the Turks began pillaging Georgian lands, he suddenly attacked them. Only insignificant Seljuk forces escaped. The king then entered Shirvan and took the town of Kabala. He then went to Kartli, but soon after had to return to Shirvan: the population had evidently refused to submit to him.
In the period from the early spring (February) of 1120 to June 1121 Georgian troops attacked the Seljuk settlements on the eastern and south-western approaches to the Transcaucasus and drove the Seljuks out their strongholds. At the same time, the Georgian king attacked them in the large towns of the Transcaucasus. In 1120 he began the assault of Tbilisi.
In the 1080s, when the Seljuks established themselves in Georgia, Tbilisi had passed to their hands. The Jafarid emirs of Tbilisi had been deposed and the city was ruled by a council of eiders ("berni"). In 1110 - 1115 David captured the towns and fortresses around Tbilisi, thus in effect surrounding the city. The Muslim merchant-elite had considerable influence in the city and looked for protection against the Georgian king. They sent an envoy to Torgil ibn-Mukhammed, ruler of Arrana, who dispatched an official, "shikhna", to Tbilisi. David continued the struggle for the city and compelled the population to pay him 10,000 dinars and agree to the presence of a Georgian "shikhna" with a guard of ten horsemen. Of course, this was only a symbol of the Georgian king's power in the city, but it was a step towards the subjugation of Tbilisi. However, this situation did not suit either of the sides, and the people of Tbilisi offered to place their city under the suzerainty of Nejm ad-Din il-Ghazi ruler of Maiyafarikin.
The position of the Turks in the Transcaucasus steadily grew weaker. They were losing their strongholds, and the Georgian king was vigorously advancing against the Seljuk towns, villages and pastures. A delegation of Seljuk rulers and merchants
of Gandza, Tbilisi and Dmanisi went to Sultan Mahmud. The Seljuks were seriously alarmed for their rule in the Transcaucasus was threatened and this required resolute measures. Acting on orders from the Sultan, a coalition force took the field under Nejm ad-Din il-Ghazi.
The Seljuks invaded Georgia along the Manglis-Trialeti road. On August 10, 1121 their army (300,000 strong, according to approximate estimates) encamped in the vicinity of Manglisi-Didgori. King David had 40,000 Georgian troops, 15,000 kipchak, about 500 Ossetian mercenaries and a force of 200 European Crusaders. This numerical breakdown of the Georgian army clearly indicates that its main force consisted of Georgians. This was only natural, for the destiny of the Georgian state was at stake in the battle of Didgori. The involvement of Crusaders (200 soldiers) was of some practical importance: the Crusaders had considerable experience of fighting the Turks, but of still greater significance was their symbolic and political role in this battle - it emphasized that Georgia and the Western countries had common interests in the struggle against the Seljuks,
The Georgian army encamped in the Nichbisi Gorge and on orders from the king the road for a retreat was cut off - the exit from the ravine was blocked. The main force, winch was to bear the brunt of the enemy - assault was commanded personally by the king. The rest of the army, commanded by Prince Demetre, was kept in reserve and was to launch a sudden attack on the enemy at the crucial moment.
Before the battle commenced, David exhorted the troops to fight bravely, reminding them that there was no retreat.
The Georgians won a crushing victory at Didgori on August 12. Not satisfied with the victory on the battlefield, the Georgians pursued and decimated the enemy. The Seljuks suffered huge losses, while the Georgians won the day with relatively few casualties. Many prisoners were taken. The Georgians captured considerable quantities of weapons and jewelry. One piece of booty was particularly important: this was the gold - collar of Dubeis ibn - Sadak, ruler of the town of Khila (on the Euphrates) - symbol' of his strenght and power. To commemorate this victory David presented this jewelstudded collar to the Gelati Monastery.
The importance of the Didgori victory was that it dispersed the myth about invicibility of the Turks and inspired the peoples subjugated by them with the hope of liberation. Moreover, this battle showed that the Muslim world of the Middle East now had a serious rival in Georgia. Further, it opened for David the road to Tbilisi and new victories. Hence forth steered a direct course towards Tbilisi.
The city's destiny was in fact predetermined, but its ruling elite refused to surrender their positions without resistance. In 1122, after heavy fighting, the Georgian troops entered Tbilisi. According to the Georgian chronicler, "the king took Tbilisi in the very first assault".
After this battle the king moved his residence from Kutaisi to Tbilisi, making it his capital. He abolished the local self-government and appointed officials to govern the city.
The next objective was Dmanisi. It was taken in March, 1123.
Thus ended the Georgian people's long and bitter struggle to reunite their country. The last strongholds of the Seljuks in Georgia fell with the seizure of Tbilisi and Dmanisi.
Following the liberation of the whole of Georgia David the Builder shifted military operations to territory outside Georgia: the land could not be guaranteed against the threat of attack as long as the approaches to it were in the hands of the Seljuks. Georgia's further political interests were linked with Armenia and Shirvan.
A circumstance that must be borne in mind is that, after capturing Tbilisi, King David advanced against Dmanisi and Gandza, cities which had invited external forces against Georgia. For the time being Gandza escaped merely with being attacked, But Dmanisi was, as we have noted, reunited with Georgia. Then began the decisive battle for Shirvan and Armenia.
The struggle for Armenia and Shirvan, as in the case of the struggle for the Northern Caucasus, pursued both strategic and economic objectives. On the one hand, the seizure of Armenia and Derbent would make Georgia's frontiers secure and, the other, possession of these territories would give Georgia control of Caucasian Middle Eastern and international trade-routes.
King David began his campaign against Shirvan early in the 12th century, but was unable to envigorate it because before beginning the struggle for the liberation of the Transcaucasus, he had to complete Georgia's unification and then mobilize the local population for the war against the Seljuks.
The reunification of Kakheti and Hereti gave Georgia frontiers abutting Shirvan, with the result that relations with the Shirvan-shahs occupied an important place in King David's foreign policy.
In 1116, after the Seljuks were expelled from Tao, David sent his daughter, Kata, to Byzantium as the bride of the emperor. Prior to this, his elder daughter, Tamar, had been given in marriage to the shah of Shirvan, so that as two celestial bodies, one would illumine the East and other the West.
The Georgian king's last step pursued the aim of forming a political alliance with Shirvan to insure a joint struggle against the Seljuks.
Seljuk sultans were likewise seeking the support of the shah of Shirvan, for the latter's attitude would be of considerable importance in the imminent war between Georgia and the Seljuks. But David evidently failed to win over the shah of Shirvan, and went to war against him in 1117.
Before beginning his campaign against Shirvan, the Georgian king subjugated the Grigolisdze feudal possession with its capital, the fortress of Gishi, on the westernmost outskirts of Georgia. This fortress had evidently retained its independence with the aid of the Turks. After capturing the fortress of Gishi, David sent Prince Demetre to Shirvan at the head of a large army (1117).
Raids into Shirvan followed one another in quick succession. The Georgian king had apparently succeeded in winning over the ruler of Derbent. The shah of Shirvan was killed in one of the battles with Derbent-forces. A candidate who enjoyed the favour of the Georgian king and had been his ally in the Didgori-battle was installed on the Shirvan-throne. To avenge the defeat at Didgori, Sultan Makhmoud decided, as a first step, to punish the shah of Shirvan. He invaded Shirvan, took the town of Shemakha, captured the shah and sent the Georgian king an insulting message, informing him of the capture of the shah Shirvan and demanding tribute ("kharaja"). He offered David two alternatives: either make the proper gifts or accept
open battle. David took the field against the sultan and en-route put to flight the atabag of Ran, who was marching to the sultan's assistance. The frightened sultan fled from Shirvan under cover of darkness, but David was unable to take advantage of this on account of the bickering in his army between Kipchaks and Georgians.
As we have noted earlier, the Shirvan issue was of great importance to both Georgia and the Seljuks, The struggle for Shirvan dragged on and sapped the strength of both sides. The Georgian king waged an unending struggle for Shirvan, now seizing towns and fortress and then retreating again. While the Christians in Shirvan supported the king of Georgia, the Muslims begged the Seljuk sultan to protect them against the intrusions of the "infidel" king. In this situation it was vital to consolidate the Georgian power in Shirvan. Also, it must be borne in mind that the shah of Shirvan was the sultan's prisoner and no longer figured in subsequent events, in other words, the local ruling dynasty was no longer represented. In 1124, when David finally conquered Shirvan, he subjugated that country directly to the Crown. The towns and fortresses were garrisoned with Georgian troops, and the country was governed by officials appointed by the Georgian court.
The struggle for Armenia proceeded in parallel with the conquest of Shirvan, In May 1124 King David took a number of fortresses in Northern Armenia. The account given by David's historian about the capture of the fortress-towns of Gagi, Teruna-kan and Mankaberd and a large part of Armenia is corroborated by the Armenian historians, Vardan the Great and Stepanos Orbeli.
This did not end the struggle for Armenia. On August 20, 1123 "envoys of the elders of Ani came (to David - M. L.) and said (they wished - M. L.) to turn the town over to him". According to Vardan the Great, the Ani-elders were motivated by the intention of Shaddadid Abul-Aswar, the emir of Ani, to sell the town to the emir of Kars for 60,000 dinars. Moreover, Abul-Aswar had turned the Ani-Cathedral into a mosque. Altho-ughn the people of Ani had invited David, the Shaddadids refused to yield the town. David mustered an army of 60,000 troops and seized Ani and the regions adjoining it. Together with eight sons and relatives, Emir Abul-Aswar was taken prisoner and sent to Georgia. According to Matteois Urkhayetsi, King David defeated the Muslim army (nearly 20,000 troops were killed) and liberated the Armenian town of Ani from its 60 years' Muslim captivity. In the liberation of Bagratid Armenia from Muslim tyranny a large contribution was made by the Armenian population, which fought side by side with the Georgian troops.
King David appointed officials to govern both the town and region and left a Georgian garrison there. The former Shirak-kingdom of the Ani-Bagratuni was incorporated in Georgia. "The defense of Ani was entrusted to the Meskheti-"aznauris", - writes a Georgian historian, that was when the Georgian kings took the title of Shahan-sha, i. e. the title of the Armenian Bagratids. Although the Georgian king wrested the Shirak-kingdom from the Shaddadids, he did not regard the latter the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified.
Relations with northern neighbours held an important place in Georgia's political history. A vital issue in these relations was the possession of the passes in the Caucasian Mountains, particularly across the Daryal Ravine. The fortificaion of the Daryal pass was one of the main problems of the kings of united Georgia from the beginning of the 11th century onwards.
This problem was resolved in the reign of David. In order to secure the Daryal route, Khevsureti was made a Crown-possession, royal palaces and fortresses were built in the Aragvi and Ter ravines, and fortifications were erected in Mukhrani.
In 1118 David occupied the Daryal fortresses, and all the "gates of the Ovseti and Caucasian mountains". King David built a fortress below Gveleti, and nearby he constructed a palace, which he used during his campaigns in Ossetia.
Possession and fortification of this route were indispensable for the maintenance and development of the flourishing economic, political and cultural relations that Georgia had with the Northern Caucasus.
In the Northern Caucasus Georgia had the closest relations with the Ossetians. The Georgian kings frequently used Ossetian mercenaries against internal and external enemies.
David the Builder showed a particularly keen interest in the Darubandi - (Derbendi -) route, which explained his interest in Northern Azerbaijan. The struggle between Georgia and the Seljuks for Shirvan and the Derbent pass reached a high pitch. David appreciated the great strategic and commercial value of the Caspian gates.
In his relations with the peoples of the Northern Caucasus, David abided by the traditions laid down by his predecessors. Georgia had always close contacts with her northern neighbours. Here attention must be drawn to the relations of the kingdom of Egris-Abkhazeti with Ossetia and Jiketi and to Georgia's relations with the Vainakh people (Durdzuki). These were political, economic and cultural relations. By spreading the Georgian language, culture and literature, and also Christianity (in particular, by the building of Georgian churches), Georgia strove to bind these peoples to herself and draw them into the Georgian. cultural and political world. Via the Northern Caucasus Georgia maintained her most distant ties - with Kiev Rus.
The Kipchaks inhabiting the South Russian steppes were constantly at war with Kiev Rus. In 1103 some of them crossed the Don and others settled in the Northern Caucasus as neighbours of the Ossetians. David entered into relations with the latters, who were led by Otrok. He married Otrok's daughter and then resettled the tribe in Georgia.
In the Northern and Western Christian world, Georgia was known as a strong Christian kingdom. Evidence of this was the marriage of the Kiev prince Isyaslav to a daughter of King David (or of his son Demetre). This marriage gave the Kiev prince added prestige and brought him the support of a strong Orthodox state. It strengthened his hand in his intention to settle the difficulties in the Church without Byzantine interference and to subject it to his power. An interesting point is that the Kiev state concluded a political alliance precisely with Georgia, which at the time had become a rival and successor of the Byzantine empire in the Middle East.
A further indication of Georgia's growing prestige was the contact that she established with the Crusaders. Georgia and the Crusaders were drawn together by the circumstance that they had a common enemy - the Seljuks. True, they had entirely different aims and interests, but the wars of Georgia and the Crusaders at the close of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries objectively pursued one and the same purpose. For that reason the reports about King David's contacts with one of the Crusader-leaders, the king of Jerusalem, Baldwin, are quite credible. The participation of a contingent of Crusaders in the Didgori-battle is evidence of these contacts.
Thus, as a result of the steps taken in Georgia at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century, David's words that he was bequeathing to his son Demetre a land extending "from Nikopsia to Derbent and from Ossetia to Aragatsi", are well founded. Also well founded but somewhat exaggerated is the record of King David's historian that David made the sultan a tributary, that the Greek king became his kinsman, that he destroyed the barbarians, subjected kings, enslaved rulers, forced the Arabs to flee, pillaged Ismail, and reduced the Persians to dust and their princes to peasants.
In the first quarter of the 12th century (in the reign of David the Builder), Georgia was completely liberated from the Seljuks. The long process of uniting the Georgian lands and the creation of a united Georgian feudal monarchy was consummated. Moreover, Georgia annexed Northern Armenia, Shirvan and a large part of the Northern Caucasus.
These major successes were due to a number of internal and external factors.
In Georgia rapid economic, cultural and political development began in the 9th century. The general upsurge and ultimate unification were fostered by the further expansion of intensive branches of agriculture and handicrafts, the economic union of various provinces and the bustling domestic and foreign trade.
The Seljuk invasion was a heavy blow to the united country holding up its further development. Nevertheless, Georgia shook off the foreign yoke, even if, in so doing, it had to make a considerable sacrifice.
Before taking the field against the Seljuks, King David subordinated the powerful secular feudal lords and made the Georgian Church, a strong feudal organisation in its own rights, his ally. Actions against the Crown were regarded as high treason. At a time when the people were waging a life-and death struggle against the Seljuk invaders, any weakening of the stand against internal and external enemies was also regarded as tantamount to high treason. This gave David a strong hand against particularist trends and was used by him to justify his ruthless repressions.
The war against the Seljuks was a war of liberation. The Georgian people fought to recover the land taken by the Seljuks, to recover the homeland of their fathers. The Georgian peasants defended their farms from ruin and their families from annihilation. When this movement was headed by a gifted organizer, strategist and statesman, the entire nation rose against the enemy.
King David united the scattered forces and devoted all his energy to the national cause.
Although David championed the interests of the ruling class, he relied on the masses, on the petty and military middle nobility, who regarded him as their deliverer from the foreign invaders and their defender against the great feudal lords; also, he depended on the peasants, who looked to the Crown to deliver them from the external enemy. The king had the support of the Georgian towns, which had grown stronger and bigger and found that it was not to their advantage to be outside a strong Transcaucasian state.
The Seljuk domains were disintegrating: the endless wars between the political units that emerged on the ruins of these domains obstructed international trade and hindered the further development of towns and urban life. In the Middle East, feudal Georgia was really the only growing state with a strong centralized power. Hence the gravitation of the towns towards her. This is strikingly illustrated by the history of Tbilisi and Ani. The elders of Tbilisi had turned the city over to the Georgian king on many occasions in the 11th century, while the elders of Ani had offered their town first to Bagrat IV and to David the Builder. True, in 1122 King David had to take Tbilisi by assault but this resistance was due to his policy of abolishing the city's self-government and also to the existence of large Muslim population, which included a military-feudal aristocracy. Whenever the Tbilisi-elders offered the city to the Georgian king, this step was resisted by the Muslim military-feudal-elite, entrenched in Isani. Thus, this example hardly changes the overall picture.
In his struggle to complete Georgian's unification and expel the Seljuks, David thus relied on the petty and middle military nobility, the Church and the great feudal lords, who were subordinated to the central power. The reorganized army was his immediate military buttress.
The entire might of the people was directed towards one goal, and the desired objective was attained.
The mobilisation of all forces ensured the success of David's struggle for Armenia and Shirvan. In this struggle he championed the liberation of neighbouring peoples from foreign oppression, and this brought him the support and military assistance of the local Christian population.
Not only Georgian but also many non-Georgian lands came under the Georgian Crown as a result of David's wars against internal and external enemies. As could have been expected, all the annexed regions were subordinated to Georgian state-power.
Characteristic in this respect was David's policy in Georgia, relative to the possessions of recalcitrant feudal lords. For instance, when the power of the Baghvashi-family was finally broken, the king incorporated all its possessions in his domains. The Kldekari-"eristavship" was abolished. The same fate overtook other big feudal possessions.
David pursued an analogous policy with regard to the countries conquered from the Seljuks. When he captured the town of Ani, he sent its ruler, Abdul-Aswar, together with the latter's son, Shaddad, and entire family, to Western Georgia, placed that part of Armenia under his direct rule and garrisoned it with Georgian troops. Shirvan was also subordinated directly to the king's chancellor.
Although David depended on the towns, he subordinated them to his chancellor. Ani, Samshvilde, Rustavi, Dmanisi and other towns were thus subordinated to the central power. This policy was due to the changed attitude of some Transcaucasian towns. As we know, in 1121, a delegation of the merchants of Gandza, Tbilisi and Dmanisi went to the sultan to request assistance against the Georgian king. These towns concluded a political alliance among themselves against King David.
David was determined to centralise state-power to the utmost.
A different policy was adopted towards northern neighbours. For instance, he concluded an alliance with the rulers of Ossetia under the terms of which they became his vassals. When the Kipchaks were resettled, the Georgian king occupied the entire Daryal route and still further strengthened his good neighbourly relations with the Ossetian rulers. The Durdzuki, Didois and other highland-tribes of the Northern Caucasus were likewise tributaries of Georgia.
The aim this policy was primarily to strengthen Georgia's northern frontier and ensure her further advance northwards. Although in the north, Georgia was protected by the lofty mountains of Caucasian Range, the passes were of enormous economic and strategic significance. For that reason David held these passes firmly and made vassals of the inhabitants of the northern slopes.
As David saw it, the entire country had to belong to the Crown, with "aznauris" installed as governors, on condition they personally served in the army (military nobility). As N. Berdzenishvili justifiably notes, although David could not entirely implement his policy, there is no doubt that he pursued it and subordinated the administration of domestic and external affairs to the Crown.
He united the country not only by bringing remote regions . under Crown-control but also by his far-sighted policy of centralising the state-power. In this context, the reorganisation of the court, namely, the enlargement of the office of "mtsignobartukhu-tsesi" was of particularly great importance. He opposed the power of the "eristavi", typical of the epoch of early-feudal dismemberment, with the power of the highest court-official, the "vaziri" "mtsignobartukhutsesi", giving the latter prominence.
Among the steps taken to unite remote regions and subordinate, them to the Crown, interest is centred on the unification of the episcopal sees of Bedia and Alaverdi. By subordinating two episcopal sees situated in different parts of the country (Bedia in Egrisi, West Georgia, Alaverdi in Kakheti, East Georgia) to one and the same person, the highest representative of the Crown, King David stressed the unity of all the Georgian regions and their subordination to the central authority.
Georgia's expansion brought it not only Georgian lands proper but also non-Georgian regions (Armenia, Shirvan) together with their non-Georgian population: Muslims, Jews, Gregorian Armenians and others. Muslims, Armenians and Jews lived also in Georgian towns (particularly Tbilisi).
This raised the problem of the status of people of other nationalities and religions. The Georgian court adopted a policy of ethnic-and religious-tolerance. This is vividly illustrated by the benefits grated to Muslims of Tbilisi; Christians were forbidden to slaughter pigs, Muslims were given complete freedom to profess their faith, and one of the city's baths was reserved exclusively for them.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the per-capita-taxes paid to the state by the urban population was: Georgians 5 dinars, Armenians 4 dinars, and Muslims 2 dinars. David showed his' respect for Muslims by building a palace for them in Tbilisi. Although this was an unusual policy in feudal times, it was dictated by the need to strengthen the internal unity of the multinational state in the interests of the ruling class.
King David was perfectly well aware of Tbilisi's place and significance in Georgia's subsequent history. In those days it was one of the most important commercial centers in the Middle East. Long Muslim rule had given prominence to Muslim merchants in the city's life. It was the desire to maintain normal relations with these merchants that mainly predetermined David's policy. He reckoned with the fact that in the middle East all trade was in the hands of Muslims. Tbilisi was a trade-hub, and this benefited Georgia most of all. Also, King David reckoned with the circumstance that Muslim states were powerful in the Middle East, and, as an enlightened and perspicacious ruler of a civilized state, he showed respect for the religious faith of his neighbours and did not persecute other nationalities and religions.
He showed similar respect for the large Armenian population, but it must be noted that from David's day, Georgia's rulers made every effort to draw the annexed countries into the Georgian world and bind them to Georgian statehood. Various means were used to achieve this aim. In this context,. a consistent policy was pursued towards Armenia from the very beginning.
Most of Armenia was incorporated within Georgia in the reign of David the Builder. Armenians and Georgians fought shoulder to shoulder to liberate their land from Turkish invaders.
The Armenian historians of those days paid tribute to King David for liberating the Armenians from foreign oppression and regarded him as the saviour of their people. King David did much to restore Armenian towns, build good roads and promote the welfare of the population. This was only natural, for he regarded Armenia as part of his kingdom. He helped to resettle Armenians in Georgia, large numbers of whom made their homes in Gori, where they were provided with facilities for handicrafts and trade.
The policy towards people of their religions and nationalities was evidence of Georgia's high cultural level and its great political strength,
But in considering this general policy, it must be borne in mind that, in those years, Georgia emerged as the force uniting the Caucasian peoples, politically and culturally rallying kindred and neighbouring Caucasian peoples around herself. She under-took this mission as soon as the process of uniting the land was started. In order to spread its religion, language and culture, the Georgian state built churches in the North Caucasus, making Georgian inscriptions on their walls. The purpose of this was to Georgianize some of the peoples inhabiting the Caucasian Mountains. Most of the Kipchaks settled in Georgia were Georgianized: they adopted the Georgian religion, language and culture, and subsequently many became leading Georgian statesmen.
The Ossetians came under strong Georgian influence. In the 10th century their conversion to Christianity was fostered actively by King Giorgi of Ergris-Abkhazeti. But Christianity was not finally established in Ossetia, and for that reason in the 11th - 12th centuries secular and ecclesiastical leaders sought to consolidate Christianity by building churches and by other measures. This was a period when Georgian influence in Ossetia was spreading intensively. In Ossetia, Christianity brought with it the Georgian language and Georgian culture, and this drew the two peoples closer together. Thus, in addition to her political influence, Georgia exercised a cultural influence on her neighbours.
However, in parallel with her policy of religious toleration, Georgia carefully and consistently sought to convert other Christian denominations particularly the Gregorian Armenians, into the Chalcedon denomination.
The same policy was pursued very vigorously by the Byzantine empire in the 11th century.
This attitude to the Armenians was due to Armenia's political position. She was pressured by both Byzantium and Georgia, Along with other methods, both sides made active use of ideological means and endeavoured to strengthen their position by achieving religious unity. There were two tendencies in this clash of dogmas. Some Church-leaders maintained that there was no essential difference between the Armenians and the Orthodox Chalcedonians and considered that it was possible to unite these two Churches. Others insisted that there were fundamental distinctions between them and on these grounds contended that they could not be united.
The leadership of the Armenian Church in Kilikia was not opposed to unity with the Orthodox (Byzantine) Church. This is borne out by the Statement of Principles of the Armenian Church compiled by the Armenian patriarch Nerses in the 12th century (circa 1170) and submitted to the emperor Manuel I (Comnenos). In relation to Kilikian Armenia, Byzantium pursued the same objectives as were pursued by Georgia towards the part of Armenia annexed by her. While the emperor Manuel I attempted to consolidate his position in the Kilikian Armenian kingdom, the Armenian patriarch hoped to strengthen his own position with the assistance of the Byzantine emperor. Both considered that religious unity was one of the basic preconditions for the attainment of their aims.
Attempts to unite the Chalcedonian and Grigorian Churches were made as early as the 11th century, when in a dogmatic polemic at the court of Constantine X (Ducas) (1059- 1068) the Armenian religious leader, Jakob Kerabi, sided with the Chalcedonians. He wrote the Book of Faith, in which he showed that these two denominations could be united. A similar document was written in the 12th century by the patriarch Nerses following the talks he had with the emperor. In this document he endeavoured to prove that no fundamental difference existed between the Armenian and Chalcedonian Churches.
As we have already noted, the tendency to unite the Armenian and Georgian Churches emerged in Georgia in the 12th century.
A factor influencing the religious relations with Armenia was that there was a large number of Chalcedonian Armenians in Georgia. Moreover, these relations were influenced by the historical situation.
Initially, following the schism between the Georgian and Armenian Churches, the Georgians only defended themselves, and even the polemical Church-split between Georgia and Armenia did not affect the attitude towards the Armenians.
A representative of the Armenian clergy, the scholarly monk Sosten, went to Georgia in the 11th century to accuse the Georgian Church of heresy. In this case the Georgian Church did nothing more than defend itself against Sosten's attacks. But, after Armenia came under Georgia's political influence, the situation changed, and the Armenian clergy had to defend itself against the confessional expansion of the Georgians.
Naturally, after winning political supremacy, Georgia sought unity with the Armenians on the basis of the Chalcedonian faith. For reasons that can be easly appreciated, she endeavoured to achieve that aim cautiously. It was believed that the most desirable way was to pursuade the Armenians that their faith was ,,mis-guided".
The striving to subjugate the Armenian Church began manifesting itself in the reign of David the Builder, and an organised drive to that end was conducted in the latter half of the 12th century. This is shown by the synods that took place in the days of David the Builder and, particularly, of Queen Tamar. The Georgian-Armenian polemic was the main point of discussion.
Georgian wanted to unite the surrounding regions and peoples around herself, but this was seriously hindered by the religious particularism of the Armenians. Georgian leaders were well aware that religious unity with Armenia would create a solid foundation for the further strengthening of Georgian-Armenian political relations. But this unity were strongly resisted and they had to act with circumspection and officially pursue a policy of religious toleration.
In the first quarter of the 12th century Georgia became the strongest power in the Caucasus, while in the Near East it came forward as a rival, and also heir, to the Byzantine empire. In this situation, the Georgian kings naturally considered few of their neighbours and even members of the Byzantine imperial family as their equals. A noteworthy fact is that, while in the 11th century they regarded the receipt of Byzantine court-titles as a great honour and even sought the title of "kurapalati", David the Builder who bore the titles of "sebastos" and "paniper-sebastos" when he was a prince, renounced these titles when he ascended the throne, considering them humiliating.
In 1085 he is mentioned as a "sebastos" in 1089- 1091 he is called a "panipersebastos", but in the acts of the Ruis-Urbnisi synod, in which his father is called the "king of kings" and "caesaros" of East and West, David is mentioned by the title: "King of Abkhazians and Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, Autocrat".
Thus, after consolidating his position in Georgia, ceasing to pay tribute to the Seljuks and reuniting most of the Georgian lands, David renounced Byzantine titles and adopted the title of King of Abkhazians and Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, styling himself an autocrat.
The titles of the Georgian kings mirror the historical process of the unification of the Georgian lands and the enlargement of the Georgian kingdom. The titles of the first kings of united Georgia had the following sequence: King of Abkhazians (i. e. King of Western Georgia), King of the Kartvelians (i. e. King of Kartli and Meskheti) and then an indication of the relationship with Byzantium, the title of "kurapalat". Thus, Bagrat III was called: King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, "kurapalat ", Bagrat IV, who was also called King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, at first had the title of "kurapalati" then "novelissimus" (40s) and from the 60s onwards "sebastos" Giorgi II was also styled King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians, and his title of "novelissimus" was at first replaced by the title of "sebastos" and then by that of "caesar".
A radical change in titulature is introduced in the reign of David the Builder. At first he was called King of the Abkhazians and Kartvelians and bore Byzantine titles, but then these titles were dropped, and he added the title of King of the Ranians and Kakhians (which was an indication of the reunification of Hereti and Kakheti). The title of King of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians, Kakhians and Somekhians is to be seen on coins minted in David's day and on the royal standard.
The addition of the title of "King of the Armenians" ("mepe somekhta") indicates the conquest of the kingdom of Tashir - Dzorageti, whose kings were called "mepe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Ani - kingdom of the Armenian Bagratids, who bore the title of "Shahansha". The latter title should have appeared when David conquered the Ani - kingdom, but it is recorded in annals dating from the reign of King Giorgi III (1156-1184). The titles of "Shahansha" and "Sharvansha" should have appeared in the latter years of the reign of David the Builder, when he conquered Shirvan, but it is recorded only in the charter of King Giorgi III. We feel that the titles given in the charter of Giorgi III, namely, King of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians and Kakhians, "Sharvansha" and "Shahansha" were adopted in the last years of the reign of David the Builder. That is when the word "autocrat" must have appeared. The tendency to use that title was shown by the first kings of united Georgia, an expression of this being the proud statement of the Bagrationi-family's historian that King Bagrat III "autocratically conquered the whole of the Caucasus from Jiketi to Gurgan". Although some neighbouring regions were indeed dependent upon Bagrat III, he "autocratically" ruled only a large part of Georgia. However, this tendency became real in the reign of King David, who was the first "autocratic" king (in a centralized feudal kingdom), and he bore the corresponding title early in the 12th century.
The important component of "Sword of the Messiah" also appeared in the title of the Georgian kings in the reign of King David. It is engraved in Arabic on a copper coin of David's day: "King of Kings, David, son of Giorgi, Sword of the Messiah, which expressed the policies pursued by David. By calling himself the "Sword of the Messiah" he made it clear that in his actions he had divine guidance, and that any act against the king was an act against God. This "Sword of the Messiah" was directed against internal and external enemies. In the eyes of neighbouring Christian peoples. David's expulsion of the Seljuk invaders from the Transcaucasus made him the "Sword of the Messiah" in the struggle against Muslim conquerors. This was a happy formula by which the king justified his clearly pronounced internal and external policy. The "Sword of the Messiah" was, a religious symbol of the political struggle and a weapon of the feudal class in strengthening their social and political supremacy. It was not accidental that King David caused the title "Sword of the Messiah" to be engraved on coins in Arabic. These coins were in circulation throughout the Middle East and were a splendid means of popularizing this title. It showed the Muslims that as the "Sword of the Messiah" David was the protector of Christians and to be feared by all the enemies of Christendom.
The titles adopted in the reign of King David fully mirrored the gradual growth of Georgia's international influence.
The hereditary character of the throne and the coronation-procedure were of no little importance in consolidating the autocratic powers of the king. The kings of united Georgia evidently sought to legalise the passage of the throne to their elder sons, and for that reason in most cases they crowned their sons in their lifetime. This pursued other aims as well. The prevaling coronation-procedure obviously underpinned the role and significance of the feudal autocracy. The procedure itself had evidently been laid down in the early-mediaeval period in Western Georgia, when the king received his power not only formally but in fact largely from the feudal nobility.
King David personally crowned his son Demetre, and Demetre and Giorgi III acted likewise. After the death of Giorgi III, the supreme state-council ("darbazi") consented, some hesitation, to enthrone Tamar but declared invalid after her coronation by her father and crowned her a second time. By this act the council in effect retrieved its right to crown its kings, the right to present the king the dignities of royal majesty (sword and sceptre) with its own hands. It is noteworthy that although the feudal council crowned Tamar a second time, she declared that she had received the crown first from God and then from her kin. The importance of the coronation-ceremony is shown also by the fact that in the 13th century a new coronation-procedure was instituted, under which the privileges of the feudal families in accomplishing this act were abolished. Henceforth the coronation of the king was the privilege of the heads of individual departments. For instance, the king received his sword from the "amirspasalari" (Minister of War) regardless of his lineage. The striving of the Georgian kings to cancel the old coronation-procedure and thereby instal their heirs on the throne themselves was thus a sign of the trend towards the establishment of autocratic rule.
This elevation of the royal power required appropriate ideological justification. Here assistance came from Georgian Christian ideology, which declared that the supremacy of royal authority sprang from the divine origin of the royal power and dynasty.
<
With the emergence of a class-society and the state, there appeared the legend of the "superhuman", "divine", origin. Georgia, too, emulated that example, evolving the theory of the divine origin of the Bagrationi-family. In Georgia and Armenia this family acquired political prominence, early, and various legends were created about it. The further evolution of these legends is linked with the period when the Bagrationi became monarchs of united Georgia. Sumbat Davitisdze wrote the Chronicle of the Bagrationi-Family, giving the family's history and genealogy, according to which the Georgian Bagrationi were the direct descendants of the prophet David.
This legend, as all similar legends, pursued the aim of exalting the royal family. It placed this family above others and, most important, ideologically justified the class-rule of the reigning family. At the next stage of the consolidation of the royal power, the Georgian Bagrationi proclaimed that their kingdom was under divine guidance and patronage. This dogma was in existence during the reign of King David. In his testament he stated bluntly that his kingdom had been entrusted to him by God. To quote his own words, God had helped him to rule the kingdom and sanctioned the destruction of his enemies; true, he, David, ruled the country corporeally, but it was ruled spiritually by the Lord. Since Georgia was ruled by God, anybody raising his hand against the Crown raised it against God. At this stage of the development of the state - power, in accordance with its actual position and for the purpose of consolidating that position, the personality of the king was elevated to the level of a divinity.
At the next stage, the ideological theory of elevating the royal power was further developed and, in accordance with its new variant, evolved in the reign of Queen Tamar, the Georgian kings were the "flesh of the flesh of the tree of David and Chosroes." Origin from David was now complimented with origin from the Chosroes kings of Persia. According to Queen Tamar's historian, her marriage was consummated "as befitted their Olympic majesty and royal radiance". Whereas origin from David gave the Georgian kings their "Olympic majesty", their origin from the Persian kings gave them a "royal radiance". Thus, as the Bagrationi-family was gradually elevated, legend proclaimed them as being first of divine origin and then as equal to divinity. In the reign of David the Builder the acts of the king were proclaimed as being divine acts. To this was subsequently added their origin from the Chosroes and the title "Most August".
Consciousness that the royal power was "autocratic" took root in the royal family as early as the reign of King David and was mirrored in the king's title.
Voir
aussi : http://www.hsir.org/Theology_en/E3d5041David4.pdf
