Crusades Volume 12, 2013 Published by for the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East Offprint from Crusades Vol. 12 (2013). © by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East crusades 2013_offprint cover.indd 1 22/10/2013 14:23:47 e. co m as h © Copyrighted material e. co m Abstract as hg at e. co m Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University mkhedari@mkhedari.ge as hg at Mamuka Tsurtsumia hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m The present article examines the role of the True Cross as a military artefact in Georgia and compares it with practices in the Frankish East and Byzantium. It discusses all the instances of its use in battles by the medieval Georgian army. In Georgian chronicles, the use of the True Cross is frequently attested from the twelfth century onwards. This tradition, like many others, was probably established in the reign of David the Builder, and it may have been due to the inluence of the Franks. Although the Bagrationis imitated Byzantium in the use of the True Cross in the legitimation of, and propaganda for, the monarchy, the use of Christ’s Cross by the Georgian army differs from late Byzantine practice and is more analogous to that of the Franks. In the reign of David’s successors a irm tradition of the True Cross leading the army into battle took its inal shape. An ideology that assigned a special mission to the True Cross was established: it was viewed as a protector of the kings, their guardian and the foremost weapon. The use of Christ’s Cross in the Latin East and in Georgia had much in common: in both cases it was regarded with great respect and devotion and was used extensively in battles to boost the army’s morale. That said, some differences are noticeable and these are discussed here. e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as As Christian tradition has it, the cross that Christ was cruciied on was discovered in Jerusalem by Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, in the fourth century. In 614 the Persians carried it away as war booty when they captured the holy city. Emperor Heraclius, after his victory over the Persians, took it back in 630. Following the conquest of Jerusalem by the Arabs, the Holy Cross disappeared and it (more precisely, part of it) was rediscovered only in 1099, when the crusaders captured Jerusalem.1 The tradition of the division of the Saviour’s cross and the dispatch of these parts to different corners of the world is also very old; according to some reports it was Empress Helena who divided it into two equal parts: one for Jerusalem and one for Constantinople.2 1 It should be noted that the authenticity of this holy relic was never questioned, unlike, say, the Antiochene Holy Lance. As will be seen later, this opinion about the Jerusalem part of the Holy Cross was shared in Christian Georgia as well. 2 Giuseppe Ligato, “The Political Meanings of the Relic of the Holy Cross among the Crusaders and in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Example of 1185,” in Autour, 316. 91 as hg at The True Cross in the Armies of Georgia and the Frankish East hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m In Europe, the use of relics of the Holy Cross in battle is attested before the crusades.3 A similar practice can also be witnessed in Byzantium.4 However, an analysis of such scattered reports suggests the use of Christ’s Cross in battle was not practiced so widely in earlier periods and did not have the signiicance it later acquired in the kingdom of Jerusalem. Alan Murray has discussed the role of Jerusalem’s True Cross as a military artefact and studied its use in battle. He is right to observe that in the battle the most important function of the Cross was to raise the army’s morale and to inspire valour.5 The rediscovered fragment of the True Cross seems to have been adorned with precious stones and metal and placed in a large cruciform piece of wood.6 The Holy Cross was usually carried in battle by the patriarch of Jerusalem or his substitute, an archbishop or a bishop.7 In the period between the years 1099 and 1187 – from the rediscovery of the Cross to its loss in the battle of Hattin – the True Cross led the Franks to war on thirty-one occasions.8 It was accompanied by the Templar Commander of Jerusalem and ten knights; the Templar Rule gave detailed instructions how the knights should act on such occasions, even providing regulations for the night sentinels – two knights whose duty it was to keep vigil over the Cross all night.9 As we see, the Franks took great care of their relic: in spite of its frequent use in battles it only crossed the frontiers of the kingdom of Jerusalem when the king himself or the very existence of the Latins was threatened. Even a campaign to e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 92 as h © Copyrighted material 3 as Ibid., 317. For instance, in 1022, Emperor Basil II had the True Cross with him in the battle against the king of Georgia, Giorgi I (1014–27): Sumbat, son of David, Tskhorebai da Utsqebai Bagratonianta [The Lives of and Information about the Bagrationis], ed. Goneli Arakhamia (Tbilisi, 1990), 55–56. On the use of the True Cross in battle by the Byzantines, see also Lynn Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght’amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership (Aldershot, 2007), 111–12, n. 89. At the same time, Holger Klein noticed that, according to the description given by Constantine Porphyrogennetos (944–59), bearing the True Cross in military campaigns by the emperor differed from the practice followed in Maurice’s time: the Cross was not openly raised, but it was placed in a special casket and one of the emperor’s entourage carried it suspended from his neck: Holger A. Klein, “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople,” in Visualisierungen von Herrschaft, ed. F. A. Bauer, Byzas 5 (Istanbul, 2006), 96; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, ed. and trans. John F. Haldon (Vienna, 1990), 124–25. This method of bearing the True Cross in campaigns differs signiicantly from the Frankish one and, as will be shown below, Georgian practice. In the Byzantine army Christ’s Cross was assigned only to the emperor, as it were, while in Frankish and Georgian armies it was displayed openly with a view to making a general impact. 5 Alan V. Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ: The Relic of the True Cross in the Armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in Crusade Sources, 218, 228. 6 Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 221; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, 2006), 305. 7 Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 227. 8 Those are the documented cases; in reality this must have happened more often: Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 222–23. 9 The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar, trans. J. M. Upton-Ward (Woodbridge, 1992), 49–50. e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m 4 co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at as hg at neighbouring Antioch was considered to be a perilous occasion and it aroused the patriarch’s opposition, hence his refusal to accompany the Cross.10 This concern for the relic explains why the True Cross never participated in the Franks’ campaigns on enemy territory or in distant expeditions; the Cross was mainly used in defensive battles waged in the kingdom’s territory.11 Understandably, the True Cross was the most signiicant relic of the kingdom of Jerusalem and many a victory gained over the Muslims was ascribed to it. The loss of this relic in the Battle of Hattin was perceived by the western Christian world as a catastrophe.12 The Muslims were well aware of the special importance of the Cross which is why the many diplomatic steps taken by the western Christians to regain it failed.13 Baha al-Din, Saladin’s friend and biographer, provides interesting evidence to show that Queen Tamar of Georgia (1184–1210) also tried to redeem the Cross of Christ lost at Hattin: “It was pointed out that the king of the Georgians had offered 200,000 dinars for the Holy Cross and that had not been accepted.”14 This information, interesting per se, indicates that Georgia’s royal court was well aware of the True Cross of Jerusalem, recognized its authenticity and was concerned for its future fate.15 The principality of Antioch also possessed part of the True Cross. This was also used in battles and was carried by a clergyman, a bishop or an archbishop. In 1119, near Atharib, in the battle with Il-Ghazi (1107–22), Prince Roger of Antioch (1112–19) himself asked a priest to go before him with the Lord’s Cross. Roger was killed in this battle, as was the anonymous priest, so the Cross of Antioch was lost forever.16 It is interesting that Peter, the archbishop of Apamea, in whose possession the Antiochene Cross was, did not die in the battle, which means that he was not the one carrying the Cross on that occasion.17 It appears that, unlike Antioch, a speciic system took shape later in Jerusalem and Georgia; in both places, especially in Georgia, the identity of the Cross-bearer was clearly deined: in the kingdom of Jerusalem it was the patriarch or his substitute; in Georgia it was e. co m 93 e. co m THE TRUE CROSS In THE ARMIES OF GEORGIA AnD THE FRAnKISH EAST as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. 10 Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 223–24. However, it should be said that the conlict of 1120 and the refusal of the patriarch to bear the Cross had a deeper reason. As shown convincingly by Hans Eberhard Mayer, in this case the refusal of the patriarch was backed by Baldwin II’s vassals who did not wish to interfere in the affairs of Antioch: Hans Eberhard Mayer, “Jérusalem et Antioche au temps de Baudouin II,” in Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 124e année, n. 4 (Paris, 1980), 717–33. 11 Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 225–27. 12 Daniel Roach, “‘The Lord Put His People to the Sword’: Contemporary Perceptions of the Battle of Hattin (1187)” (Undergraduate thesis, University of Exeter, 2008), 21–29; Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (London, 2006), 379–80. 13 Hillenbrand, The Crusades, 306–07, 310. 14 Baha ad-Din Ibn Shaddad, The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, trans. D. S. Richards (Aldershot, 2002), 202. 15 Of course, we should bear in mind that ransoming the Cross would enhance Georgia’s prestige abroad, which must have been one aim of the Georgian side. 16 Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, trans. Thomas S. Asbridge and Susan B. Edgington (Aldershot, 1999), 70–72, 98–100, 124–28. 17 Ibid., 124, n. 74. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m always the duty of the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chqondideli, who at the same time was both an ecclesiastic (bishop of Chqondidi) and the irst oficial of the State (Mtsignobartukhutsesi – royal chancellor). Murray ends his important article thus: “Within the eighty-eight year existence of the irst kingdom of Jerusalem, the True Cross had a military function which was both regular and systematic, perhaps more so than any other comparable relic in medieval Christendom.”18 This paper will move beyond Murray’s and tell the story of another relic that was also part of the True Cross and performed the same military function as the main Cross of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Far from Jerusalem, in the Caucasus, another Christian state was encircled by Muslim powers. Although the Georgians already had long experience of confrontation with the Muslims, the Franks’ ideas must have been attractive to them. At any rate, it is safe to say that the Georgians and the Franks had much in common in their attitude to the True Cross. The possession of the True Cross is linked by later Georgian historical tradition to the Conversion of Kartli during the irst half of the fourth century. According to the chronicler, the newly converted King Mirian sent his envoys to Emperor Constantine asking him for “part of the True Cross.” The emperor was only too glad “to give him part of the True Cross and the pieces of the Lord’s foot board and the nails that had pierced his hands.”19 According to tradition, therefore, part of Christ’s Cross and the foot board had been preserved in Georgia since the fourth century. Subsequently many crosses and reliquaries containing fragments of the True Cross were made. Such crosses are present in churches and monasteries both in Georgia and beyond her boundaries.20 In Georgia there may have been quite a e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 94 as h © Copyrighted material 18 e. Murray, “Mighty against the Enemies of Christ,” 231. Leonti Mroveli, “Tskhovreba kartvelta mepeta” [The lives of Georgian kings], in Kartlis tskhovreba [Life of Kartli], ed. Simon Qaukhchishvili, 4 vols. (Tbilisi, 1955–73), 1:117. 20 The inscription on the Ishkhani processional cross dating from 973 indicates that in it there was part of Christ’s Cross: “True Cross, lead and protect Bishop Ilarion”; Tedo Zhordania, Kronikebi [Chronicles] (Tbilisi, 2004), 91. There is a similar inscription on the eleventh-century processional cross of Tsaishi, which belonged to Bagrat III (“True Cross, exalt Bagrat, King of the Abkhazians and Kuropalates”) and on the Achi processional cross made in the reign of Queen Tamar (“Oh, True Cross, protect us before God on the Day of Judgement”). Teimuraz Saqvarelidze, XII saukunis kartuli cheduri khelovnebis istoriidan [From the History of Twelfth-Century Repoussé Art] (Tbilisi, 1980), 15, 27. According to Ansellus, King David the Builder’s cross also contained fragments of the True Cross: Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th–13th Centuries, trans. Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate (Farnham, 2010), 40. In Queen Tamar’s pectoral cross, which has come down to us, there was a tiny piece of the True Cross; the inscription on the reverse side of the cross reads: “True Cross, the power of the Cross, by thine leadership help and protect King and Queen Tamar”: Zhordania, Kronikebi, 268–69. In Georgia, also attested are the following reliquaries: the ninth-/tenth-century Encolpion of Martvili, the tenth-century cross of St. Quiricus, the eleventh-/twelfth-century painted icon of Cruciixion from Svipi, the twelfth-century icon of Silikhani, the thirteenth-century icon of the Saviour of Tsalenjikha, and also the tenth-/eleventh-century reliquary of Sakhakdukht: nino Chichinadze, “Tsminda jvris sanatsileebi sakartveloshi” [The Holy Cross reliquaries in Georgia], Khelovneba 1 (1991): 142–46. On Grigol Bakurianos’ list of treasures donated to the Petritsoni Monastery in Bulgaria, irst to be mentioned are “Lord’s crosses containing parts of the True Cross”: “Petritsonis kartvelta monastris tipikoni” [The typicon of the Georgian monastery of Petritsoni] in Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at 19 e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at as hg at number of such crosses but the most important cross of the kingdom must have been different, containing a particularly large piece of Christ’s Cross. This relic of the True Cross was probably mounted in gold and silver like other processional crosses and supplied with a long shaft at its base. Judging by the surviving parallels it may be assumed that the cross proper was 40–50 centimetres high, and the length of the shaft at least 140 centimetres; in all, the total height must have amounted to two metres.21 The shafts of such crosses ended in a pointed iron foot to be ixed in the ground.22 To be sure, in tenth- and eleventh-century Georgia there were many processional crosses, yet they were systematically used in battles only in the twelfth century during the period of King David the Builder’s successors.23 This may have been because of the inluence of the crusaders.24 At any rate, of all the Georgian kings, the possession and use of the True Cross is irst mentioned with real certainty in connection with David IV the Builder (1089–1125).25 We know for sure that David had the True Cross in his possession.26 In 1125, among the property bequeathed to Demetre I (1125–55) the king makes special mention of the True Cross: “To all this e. co m 95 e. co m THE TRUE CROSS In THE ARMIES OF GEORGIA AnD THE FRAnKISH EAST as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at [Monuments of Georgian law], ed. Isidore Dolidze, 8 vols. (Tbilisi, 1963–85), 3:48. It transpires that parts of Christ’s Cross, donated to the Petritsoni Monastery, were obtained by Grigol Bakurianos in Byzantium itself, as is evident from the list of the crosses: “The pectoral cross of the Holy Pillar of Life given to me by Emperor Michael and the other pectoral Holy Cross – from Khothathor”: ibid., 97. 21 However, it cannot have been very heavy, which is proved by Tamar’s thrice blessing her army with the cross held in her hand: “Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani” [Histories and eulogies of the sovereigns], in Kartlis tskhovreba, 2:93. 22 Sara Barnaveli, Kartuli droshebi [Georgian standards] (Tbilisi, 1953), 40. 23 In Georgian chronicles, the carrying of a cross ahead of the army and its use in battles irst occur in the ifth century with the Kings Archil and Vakhtang Gorgasali, though these crosses cannot be identiied with the True Cross: Juansher, “Tskhovreba vakhtang gorgaslisa” [The Life of Vakhtang Gorgasali] in Kartlis tskhovreba, 1:140, 150, 173–74. 24 The early links between Georgia and the Franks are indicated by the restoration of the functioning of the Georgian Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in the early eleventh century: Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1993–2009), 2:33. For the close and cordial relations between the Georgian Monastery of the Cross and the Franks, see Mamuka Tsurtsumia, “Commemorations of Crusaders in the Manuscripts of the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem,” Journal of Medieval History 38/3 (2012): 318–34. It is interesting to note that, according to the evidence of Orderic Vitalis, David the Builder participated in the rescuing of crusader knights from captivity: The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–80), 6:120–23. For the whole picture of contacts between Georgia and the Latin East, see Bernard Hamilton, “Latins and Georgians and the Crusader Kingdom,” Al-Masaq 23 (2011): 117–24. 25 neither can we see the use of the True Cross in battles in neighbouring Armenia, which also possessed some pieces of the Cross. On the history of the parts of the Holy Cross in Armenia, see Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, 111–20. 26 This was already known in Jerusalem. In 1121, the cantor of the Holy Sepulchre Ansellus enumerates the parts of the Holy Cross preserved in the churches of the East. According to him, Georgians had two of these crosses: one belonged to their patriarch, the other to the king: Letters from the East, 41–42. As Ansellus reports, the cross of the Georgian king, which he had redeemed, contained two different pieces of the True Cross: Letters from the East, 40. Zurab Avalishvili noticed that this information coincides with that provided in the Life of Georgia, which says that the gift of Emperor Constantine also consisted of two parts – one of the Cross proper and the other of the footboard. Zurab Avalishvili, Jvarosanta droidan [From the Time of the Crusaders] (Tbilisi, 1989), 23. at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m I added the True Cross and gave him my victorious standard, my royal armour and my treasures.”27 It may be presumed that the carrying of the Cross by the MtsignobartukhutsesiChqondideli was irst introduced during the reign of King David the Builder as well.28 Apart from the fact that the post of the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chqondideli was created by King David, this conjecture is corroborated further by the documents of the Shiomghvime Monastery. David’s concern for Shiomghvime is well known; the king turned it into royal property, exempted it from all legal obligations and appointed the Mtsignobartukhutsesi its warden.29 At the same time David declared the Shiomghvime Monastery the depository of the True Cross: “Let the True Cross … be in this church of mine.”30 These two events must be interconnected, pointing to the relation of the Mtsignobartukhutsesi with the True Cross. Walter the Chancellor provides information which might indicate that David the Builder made use of the True Cross in the Battle of Didgori in 1121. In the chronicler’s words, during the engagement with Il-Ghazi’s coalition army, King David encouraged his army by telling them that they would easily defeat the numerous enemies “with the help of the strength of the Holy Cross.”31 As we know for certain that David IV had the True Cross in his possession, we have solid grounds to identify the True Cross with the “Holy Cross” mentioned here.32 In the reign of David’s successors a irm tradition of the True Cross leading the army into battle, borne by a dedicated unit of guards, took its inal shape. The Cross, when taken into a campaign, was kept in a special tent, apparently under permanent guard. An ideology that assigned a special mission to the True Cross was established: it was viewed as a protector of the kings, their guardian and the foremost weapon. Queen Tamar’s chronicler explained on two occasions that the True Cross is “the guardian and protector of the royal sceptre,”33 and that it is “the sceptre and the armour of kings.”34 In battle, the army was led towards the enemy by the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chqondideli holding the Cross in his hands. Konstantine Grigolia aptly noted that this inspired courage and dedication in the warriors: “This e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 96 as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg 27 “Anderdzi davit mepisa” [The Testament of King David] in Kartuli istoriuli sabutebi IX–XIII ss. [Georgian historical documents of the ninth to thirteenth centuries], ed. Tina Enukidze, Valeri Silogava, and nodar Shoshiashvili (Tbilisi, 1984), 62. 28 Ivane Javakhishvili, “Kartuli samartlis istoria” [A history of Georgian law], in idem, Tkhzulebani [Works], 12 vols. (Tbilisi, 1979–98), 6:271. 29 Valeri Silogava, Anderdzi davit aghmasheneblisa shiomghvimisadmi [The testament of David the Builder to Shiomghvime] (Tbilisi, 2010), 6. 30 Ibid., 108. 31 Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, 170. 32 Deborah Gerish has no doubt about this connection, writing that “Walter the Chancellor credited a victory to the portion of Cross borne by King David II of Georgia”: Deborah Gerish, “The True Cross and the Kings of Jerusalem,” Haskins Society Journal 8 (1996): 143. This possibility is assumed by Thomas Asbridge and Susan Edgington as well: Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars, 170, n. 282. 33 “Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani,” 38. 34 Ibid., 69. m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at as hg at picture must remind the soldiers of Christ who had suffered martyrdom for them, which for its part must have illed them with exceptional fervour.”35 At the Battle at Anisi in 1161 the army of Giorgi III (1157–84) was led by the True Cross. It was entrusted to Ioane Mtsignobartukhutsesi and played a signiicant role in lifting the morale of the Georgian soldiers. Before the engagement, Georgian warriors offered fervent prayers to the Cross which was to lead them into the battle: “Beholding the army of the Saracens and praying passionately and appealing to God, turning their eyes up to Heaven, they were led by Ioane, who held the True Cross. They became excited and eager in their heart, and encouraged one another.”36 After such psychological preparation, according to the chronicler, “the children of life did not shun death,” winning a glorious victory. In 1163, when the Muslims unexpectedly attacked Giorgi III and put him to light, the Georgians lost one guardian of the True Cross – Kanisdze – but did not allow the enemy to capture it.37 Kanisdze was the Cross-bearer not the Mtsignobartukhutsesi; thus he was an ordinary warrior who protected the Cross at the expense of his life. This suggests that the guards of the Cross (“Cross-bearers”) were a separate unit who, like the Templars, had to accompany the Holy Cross everywhere. After Queen Tamar’s marriage in 1185, the Georgian army, headed by Iurii Bogoliubskii, launched a major raid deep into Muslim territory: e. co m 97 e. co m THE TRUE CROSS In THE ARMIES OF GEORGIA AnD THE FRAnKISH EAST as h © Copyrighted material co m as hg at e. co The king left Tbilisi … and raised the victorious standard, which had been used many a time, and ahead of the army carried the True Cross, the guardian and the protector of the royal sceptre. First they attacked the countries of Kari and Karnipora, overrunning them as far as Basiani, and came back victorious, loaded with booty.38 as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. As we see, the True Cross accompanied the king (even a royal consort) into the enemy territories. In 1195, the Georgian army, ready for a campaign in Arran, was addressed by Queen Tamar, who encouraged the warriors and reminded them of the power of the True Cross: “Trust only God and keep your hearts true to Him and set all your hopes on Christ’s Cross. Go ahead, march to their country with the assistance of the most holy Virgin and the power of the invincible Cross.”39 Then Tamar blessed the army, “had the True Cross carried ahead, and sent Anton Chqondideli with the army.”40 That the Georgian army entering Arran was indeed led by the True Cross is corroborated by another source: “David advanced, led by the True Cross and e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m 35 Konstantine Grigolia, “Kartvelta samkhedro khelovneba rustvelis epokashi” [The art of war of Georgians in the epoch of Rustaveli] in Shota rustvels [To Shota Rustaveli: Jubilee collected papers] (Tbilisi, 1966), 49. 36 “Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani,” 8. 37 Ibid., 14. 38 Ibid., 38. 39 Basili Ezosmodzghuari [Master of the Court], “Tskhovreba mepet-mepisa tamarisi” [Life of Tamar, Queen of Queens] in Kartlis tskhovreba, 2:126. 40 Ibid. as hg at e. co m lying the victorious standard, that of the Bagrationis and Gorgasali.”41 naturally, in the Battle of Shamkori, too, it was Anton the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chqondideli who was entrusted with the True Cross and whose duty it was to arouse the spirits of the army: e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 98 as h © Copyrighted material as hg at e. co m At that time Anton the Mtsignobartukhutsesi, a young man of noble origin, was in the king’s presence. The king ordered him to lead the army with the True Cross, which is the sceptre and armour of the kings. They encouraged one another, recalling Christ’s passions, appealing to Him for their souls and bodies, remembering each other’s valour and the daring of their fathers and grandfathers.42 hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m The impact of this boost to their morale was evident in the warriors’ response (“Here are our hands ready for the swords and our souls ready for God!”) as well as in their actions (“in search of glory they did not shun death”).43 It should be added that the battle of Shamkori ended with a victory for the Georgians. In 1202, Rukn al-Din, sultan of Rum, decided to march out against Georgia. In his letter to Tamar he made special mention of Christ’s Cross, threatening that “the Cross you set hopes on, shall be smashed before me”;44 these words reveal that the Muslims were well aware of the signiicance of the True Cross in the hands of Georgians and saw its destruction as one of their tasks. By their swift actions, Georgian commanders deprived the enemy of the strategic initiative and delivered a sudden strike against the Seljuk Rum army at Basiani which was in Muslim territory. When the Georgian forces mustered at Javakheti to prepare for this battle we ind a powerful example of the psychological impact of the use of the relic in a military setting. At irst, Queen Tamar, barefoot, led her army and then, falling on her knees, she prayed before them for a long time. She then raised the True Cross and: as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as had all the nobles brought before her and ordered each of the eristavs [governors] to approach the Holy Cross, do obeisance and kiss it. They all came forward to do so, weeping as they prayed, making obeisance and kissing the True Cross and also kissing Tamar’s hand. They all made a testament in her presence concerning their houses, children and others. The Holy Cross was borne up on the one side by Tamar and on the other by ezosmodzghuari [Master of the Court] Basil and the Cross-bearer. When everyone had done obeisance in this way she took the Holy Cross in her own hands, and as the men mounted their horses she made the sign of the Cross three times in each direction and gave them her blessing; and so they rode away trusting in God and in the tears of Tamar.45 e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m Such a morale-boosting public demonstration, in which the central place was occupied by the True Cross, doubtless contributed much to the Georgians’ victory on the ield of Basiani. 41 42 43 44 45 “Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani,” 68. Ibid., 69. Ibid., 70. Ibid., 93. The Georgian Chronicle, trans. Katharine Vivian (Amsterdam, 1991), 80. hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at as hg at After Queen Tamar’s death, Gandja, capital of Arran, refused to pay tribute to the newly crowned King Giorgi Lasha (1210–23). Before marching against the enemy the young king addressed the noblemen with a speech which makes it clear that in the battle the Georgians were still led by the True Cross: “We must set out against Gandja … with the help of God, by the guidance of the True Cross and your courage we will defeat the enemy.”46 The beginning of Mongol domination and the period of interregnum in Georgia sees meagre evidence for the True Cross. A chronicler describing the battle of the Mandaturtukhutsesi [Grand Chamberlain] Shanshe against the Turks in the middle of the thirteenth century wrote: “A ierce battle began and countless troops of the Turkish army were slain, but Shanshe’s warriors were well protected by the power of the True Cross, which they trusted.”47 The Holy Cross seems to have been in the possession of the Mandaturtukhutsesi Shanshe which is not surprising in that period of turmoil when Georgia was going through an interregnum.48 The True Cross again appears at the side of the Georgian king during the reign of King Demetre II (1270–89). Catholicos nikoloz “relinquished his post and he himself oficiated at the ordination of the king’s Cross-bearer Abraham as Catholicos.”49 That Demetre’s Cross-bearer Abraham50 carried Christ’s Cross is clear from the words of the king himself, who stated that he gratefully owes his life and his throne not only to Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin but also to “the True Cross, which preserved my kingdom, protected me and brought me to my advanced years, and granted me the sceptre and the purple of royalty.”51 The only difference is that in this period the post of the Mtsignobartukhutsesi-Chqondideli seems to have been abolished and as a result the task of bearing the Cross devolved to the king’s priest. This was the last case in which Georgian chronicles described the Georgian kings using the True Cross. The fact that we have less evidence about the participation of the True Cross in battles than must have actually been the case is due to the paucity of surviving Georgian chronicles and their laconic character; they narrate mainly large-scale battles, very rarely describing smaller conlicts in detail. nevertheless, it is still possible to reach some conclusions and draw parallels between the Frankish East and Georgia. The use of Christ’s Cross in these two areas has much in common: in both cases it was regarded with great respect and devotion and was used to boost the army’s morale prior to and during battle. e. co m 99 e. co m THE TRUE CROSS In THE ARMIES OF GEORGIA AnD THE FRAnKISH EAST as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as 46 Zhamtaaghmtsereli, Astslovani matiane [Chronicle of one hundred years], ed. Revaz Kiknadze (Tbilisi, 1987), 38. 47 Ibid., 95. 48 The chronicler eulogizes Shanshe as “great and upright:” Zhamtaaghmtsereli, Astslovani matiane, 94. 49 Ibid., 172. 50 He is mentioned in the Gudarekhi inscription of 1278 as King Demetre’s “unworthy priest and Cross-bearer Abraham”: Ekvtime Taqaishvili, Arkheologicheskie ekskursii, razyskaniya i zametki [Archaeological excursions, researches and notes], 5 vols. (Tilis, 1905–15), 2:33. 51 Zhamtaaghmtsereli, Astslovani matiane, 178. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m Yet some differences are noticeable: in Georgia, only the MtsignobartukhutsesiChqondideli, holding the highest ofice in the kingdom, was entrusted with bearing the Cross in battle and, unlike the patriarch of Jerusalem, it was unthinkable for him to refuse to fulil this duty. There was another, more signiicant difference between the practice of the use of the True Cross in battles by the Georgians and the Franks. The latter used Christ’s Cross only in defensive battles within their territories. By contrast, the Georgians were bolder and used it in offensive campaigns as well, beyond the borders of their country where it always accompanied Georgian kings.52 There is another difference in the attitude to the True Cross between the two monarchies of Georgia and of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Deborah Gerish notes that the Holy Cross did not perform the function of legitimizing the monarchy in the kingdom of Jerusalem, nor was it used in the coronation ceremony of the king; apart from the king, other persons (the patriarch, the constable of the kingdom) also carried it in battle.53 The situation was quite different in Georgia where Christ’s Cross clearly belonged to the monarchy.54 As noted above, it was “the guardian and protector of the royal sceptre”; bearing the True Cross in battle was also a prerogative of the royal dynasty. It played a major role in the process of legitimizing the king: sufice it to say that Christ’s Cross was an indispensable element of the enthronement and coronation of the Georgian kings.55 In the evidence found in both historians of Queen Tamar, the True Cross occupied a central position in the coronation ceremony in the twelfth century. It also appears in the addresses of noblemen, from which it transpires that the ceremony of the enthronement and the True Cross were inseparable: “That he, who ascends the throne and is crowned king and exalted with the assistance of his ancestors and elevated and led by the True Cross.”56 As Basil, the Master of the Court, narrated, when Queen Tamar ascended to the throne “the throne was prepared … the sceptre was raised by the noblemen, so were the True Cross and the standard of David.”57 e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 100 as h © Copyrighted material 52 at e. Or the consorts, namely Iurii Bogoliubskii and David Soslan. Gerish, “The True Cross,” 143–44, 149. 54 In Georgia, the True Cross was one of the insignia of royal authority, together with such state regalia as the crown, the sceptre, the sword, the standard, and so on: Javakhishvili, “Kartuli samartlis istoria,” 7:157–58. 55 The role of Christ’s Cross in the process of legitimation of the monarchy is noted by Antony Eastmond. In this respect Georgia continued and replicated the tradition established by Byzantium. For this, see Antony Eastmond, “Byzantine Identity and Relics of the True Cross in the Thirteenth Century,” in Vostochnokhristianskie relikvii [Eastern Christian relics], ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow, 2003), 205–16, esp. 212–14 on Georgia. Eastmond relates the introduction of this tradition in Byzantium’s neighbouring countries to the fall of the empire in 1204. It should be said that in Georgia this process may have begun much earlier; witness David the Builder’s testament, in which the True Cross occupied a place of honour. At any rate, it is safe to say that in the 1184 ceremony of the coronation of Tamar, the True Cross held a signiicant place. Gaining strength, the Georgian monarchy seems to have begun, from David the Builder’s time, to take care to equate itself with Byzantium which is evidenced also by the renunciation of Byzantine titles by David. 56 “Istoriani da azmani sharavandedtani,” 26. 57 Basili Ezosmodzghuari, “Tskhovreba mepet-mepisa tamarisi,” 115–16. e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg 53 at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at as hg at In the thirteenth-century document “The Rule and Order for the Blessing of Kings,” the ceremony of the king’s enthronement is described in detail: before the coronation of the king the leading archbishops of the kingdom should assemble in the church and “the Cross-bearer shall hold up with reverence the Tree of Life [Cross] and shall be led by the archdeacons with candles and incense,” and all proceed to the palace. Further into the ceremony the Cross-bearer addresses the king and the army. Then the procession makes its way to the church.58 There, before the beginning of the liturgy, “the Cross-bearer shall take the king’s sword [from] the amirspasalari [commander-in-chief] and place it in the sanctuary, leaning on the Tree of Life.”59 It is interesting that the king’s sword was “consecrated” in some way by coming in contact with this most sacred relic, the True Cross. After the coronation, all returned to the palace, where “the Cross-bearer, enrobed and carrying the Tree of Life, shall stand to the right-hand side of the king in front of the throne for as long as the host shall pay homage and offer tributes.”60 According to another thirteenth-century document, after the coronation, and in keeping with the regulations of the Royal Council, the bearer of Christ’s Cross was allotted a place of honour: “In the palace, the Cross-bearer must sit between the Atabag (High Constable) and the Commander-in-Chief.”61 In the “Regulations of the Royal Court,” a source dating from the end of the thirteenth or the early fourteenth century, very interesting information is provided about the rules of the movement of the Cross when on campaign. The rule of the True Cross always being at the king’s side was still in force: “And it is the rule that where the king is all the Christians should go to. The main standard should be raised and the drummers go in front, followed by the Cross-bearer, suitably clothed, with the True Cross in his hands.”62 It should be noted that during a military campaign the True Cross had a special tent: “In the ield the True Cross has a separate tent, like the royal one.”63 This rich tent seems to have been arranged like a ield church, such as was carried to battles by medieval Christian armies.64 Thus, the True Cross is last mentioned in the “Regulations of the Royal Court;”65 it had, therefore, survived the e. co m 101 e. co m THE TRUE CROSS In THE ARMIES OF GEORGIA AnD THE FRAnKISH EAST as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg 58 “Tsesi da gangebai mepet kurtkhevisa” [The rule and order for the blessing of kings] in Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi, 2:50. For the English translation of the text, see Antony Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia (University Park, PA, 1998), 242–44. 59 Eastmond, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, 243. 60 Ibid., 244. 61 “Kurtkheva mironisa” [Consecration of the chrism] in Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi, 2:49. 62 “Garigeba khelmtsipis karisa” [The regulations of the royal court] in Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi, 2:80. 63 Ibid., 97. 64 Field churches housed in tents were also carried by the Georgian army. Kirakos Gandzaketsi says that Zakaria Mkhargrdzeli, who remained loyal to the Monophysite creed, installed a ield church in a tent, like the Georgians, in spite of the deinite opposition of the Armenian clergy, to whom this was quite new: Kirakos Gandzaketsi, Istoria Armenii [History of Armenia], ed. L. A. Khanlaryan (Moscow, 1976), 120–22. 65 On the basis of several ifteenth- and sixteenth-century documents, Rima Pirtskhalaishvili suggests that the True Cross led the Georgian kings in battles in this period too: Rima Pirtskhalaishvili, at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m invasions of the Khwarazmians and the Mongol rule. Subsequently the True Cross disappears in the depth of centuries.66 In conclusion, although the Bagrationis imitated the Byzantines in using the True Cross in the legitimation and the image of the monarchy,67 the use of Christ’s Cross by the Georgian army was different from late Byzantine practice and, in fact, was analogous to that of the Franks. This is indicated by the form of the relic itself, which in the case of both the Georgians and the Franks had the shape of a cross, and, more importantly, in the frequency of its use, which was characteristic of Frankish armies. The similar frequency of the use of the True Cross in battle by the Georgians points precisely to the inluence of the Frankish settlers in the East. e. co m MAMUKA TSURTSUMIA as hg at 102 as h © Copyrighted material e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg at e. co m as hg Kvlav rustvelis biograpiuli problemis garshemo [Again on the Issue of Rustaveli’s Biography] (Tbilisi, 1991), 37–39. Indeed, in the charters of the Kings Alexander, David and Giorgi the True Cross is mentioned, but always as a formula (“With the help and leadership of the True Cross”), which clearly does not provide ground for deinite conclusions. 66 It is true that at the end of the sixteenth century some information about the True Cross can still be found. Dorotheos, Catholicos of Kartli, in the village of Itria near Surami, built a church and placed icons in it, as well as the “True Cross, processional, adorned with jewels”: “Shetsirulebis sigeli doroteoz katalikosisa itriis eklesiisadmi” [Catholicos Dorothoes’ Charter of Donations to the Church of Itria] in Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi, 3:354. But it must have been a processional cross of local signiicance, containing just a small piece of the True Cross, which could be “spared” for the village church. 67 The adoption of Byzantine models by the Bagrationi kings in royal propaganda is noted on many occasions by Antony Eastmond in his excellent study, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia.