Sokhumi State University
Teacher
Source Studies
Doctor of History
Tbilisi, Georgia
deanadiradze2014@gmail.com
Abstract
The paper examines the reliability of the information concerning the military and political history of Georgia and Safavid Iran at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as presented in The Lives of the Kings by the eighteenth-century Georgian historian Sekhnia Chkheidze. Using a comparative research method, the study juxtaposes Chkheidze’s historical accounts with the evidence provided by his contemporary, the Polish Jesuit missionary and historian Jan Tadeusz Krusiński.
The relevance of the topic derives from the fact that neither author relied primarily on written first-hand sources; instead, both drew on their own observations or on the testimony of direct eyewitnesses, which gives their works particular historical value. The study focuses on the dramatic events in Kandahar, where the role of Georgian military and political figures defending the eastern frontiers of Safavid Iran—George XI, Kaikhosro, and Prince Levan—is clearly demonstrated in the struggle against the Afghan (Ghilzai) uprising.
A comparison of the two independent sources reveals a striking similarity in their descriptions of the weak policies of Shah Sultan Husayn, anti-Georgian intrigues at the Safavid court, and the skilful diplomacy of Mirwais. Krusiński’s extensive work, The History of the Late Revolution of Persia, analyzes these developments within a broader international and geopolitical framework. In this context, the Polish author pays particular attention to the appearance in Iran of the Armenian patriot Israel Ori as an envoy of Moscow, an event that alarmed the Shah’s court and contributed to the perception of the Georgians as potential Russophiles. Against this background of mistrust, the Shah ignored George XI’s warnings and placed his confidence in Mirwais, with disastrous consequences.
Both authors describe in detail the tragic deaths of George XI in 1709 and Kaikhosro in 1711. Krusiński emphasizes the exceptional military courage of the Georgians and notes that within the Persian Empire no commander could be found who was a worthy replacement for, or equal to, Khosrow Khan. An Afghan saying recorded by the Polish chronicler—“The Persians are women compared with the Afghans, and the Afghans are women compared with the Georgians”—vividly conveys the considerable military prestige enjoyed by the Georgians in the region.
Nevertheless, Krusiński identifies the principal cause of the Georgian defeat as the deliberate sabotage and financial obstruction of the expeditions by the Persian authorities, arguing that the Safavid court feared the strengthening of Georgian military influence more than it feared the rebels themselves.
The comparative analysis reveals a substantial correspondence between the information preserved in the works of the two authors. Although certain differences naturally exist, they do not diminish the reliability of either author’s testimony or the historical value of these sources. Comparison of the two accounts confirms that the tragedy in Kandahar was not merely a local military defeat. Rather, it was the logical consequence of Iran’s internal political crisis, corruption, and pervasive distrust of the Georgians.
These developments created a political vacuum in the Caucasus. Together with the collapse of the Safavid Empire, this situation compelled Vakhtang VI and subsequent Georgian rulers to reorient their foreign policy increasingly toward the north, namely toward Russia.
The comparative synthesis of Krusiński’s region-wide analysis and Sekhnia Chkheidze’s more local and dynastic narrative helps dispel doubts regarding the possible bias of either source and demonstrates the high degree of objectivity of Chkheidze’s accounts. His work may therefore be regarded as a first-rate historical source for the study of the new political realities that emerged in the South Caucasus during the first third of the eighteenth century.
Thus, the results of the present study demonstrate the high reliability of the information contained in Sekhnia Chkheidze’s work and, at the same time, confirm that the writings of European Catholic missionaries constitute an indispensable source base for the study of Georgian history.