Doctor of History
Professor
Caucasus University
Tbilisi, Georgia
bkudava@artanuji.ge

The Death of a King in Georgia – A Significant Event with Insignificant Records

The death of a head of state—especially in earlier times and in a monarchical country—was a momentous event. It marked the end of one era and the beginning of another, inevitably accompanied by internal and external challenges. Yet, in striking disproportion to this significance, Georgian chroniclers provide exceedingly meager accounts regarding the causes and circumstances of royal deaths. In most cases, no cause is given; logically, however, advanced age or illness (“sickness”) should be assumed as the primary explanations. The scarcity of information may in part be explained by this very “banality.” Occasionally, other causes are mentioned in the sources, including death from wounds sustained in battle. Almost no examples exist of kings actually perishing on the battlefield—a detail of considerable importance for understanding the monarch’s role as commander-in-chief. Of course, we also possess well-known examples of rulers who died by assassination, in captivity, or in exile.

These sparse references—together with the rich experience of world history, the universal patterns of power struggles, occasionally contradictory data from foreign sources, and, at times, the silence of Georgian chroniclers—provide fertile ground for developing alternative versions concerning the sudden deaths of several Georgian monarchs. Taking into account both intra-dynastic/feudal rivalries and external factors, it seems plausible to argue that a number of Georgian kings (David Kuropalates, George I, David V, Lasha-George, Demetre II, Vakhtang II) fell victim to conspiracies. Even when such events appear to have been orchestrated from outside, it is evident that local actors must also have been involved in the process.

Naturally, conspiracies must have always existed, and the exploration of similar scenarios can be extended to other kings, queens, princes, and members of the royal dynasty. True, in antiquity—when medicine was poorly developed—sudden illness or death was common, and no one was immune to tragic accidents. Yet, it is equally clear that the unexpected death of a monarch (especially at a young age) could always arouse suspicion. It is noteworthy that Georgian sources almost never raise such questions. They remain silent even in cases where foreign sources provide explicit references. Nor do they record alternative explanations only to refute them. Evidently, such episodes—like other undesirable information—were deliberately avoided under the strict censorship of the royal court. Mentioning alternative versions was prohibited, which in turn suggests the involvement of members of the royal family themselves in these processes. As a result, the “narrative of the victorious side” became entrenched, while the truth of the victims of conspiracies faded from memory.

 

Keywords: History of Georgia, Georgian kings.