Cjss second Issue: cjss second Issue qxd

king managed to enter Jerusalem - controlled by allies for a short time.   The
same can be proved by the other sources [36,188], among them by  the
dead-scroll  of the Jerusalem monastery of the Holy Cross, which was pre-
sumably established to commemorate Vakhtang III. It is common knowl-
edge that together with Mongols Vakhtang III participated in the Syrian
campaign; he entered Jerusalem, visited Georgian monks and contributed
silver -1000 “Tetri” and great amount of Satin and different kinds of tissues
to support the Monastery. “We fathers Sol(o)m(o)n and Svi(me)on used this
contribution for the good of the Monastery” – reads one of the dead-scrolls
of the monastery of the Holy Cross [6, 42, 97-8]. 
G. Japaridze remarks that “only al-Maqrizi writes on the failure of the
year 710, while the positive outcome is mentioned by al-Nuwayri, Mufaddal
ibn Abi l-Fada’il and al-‘Ayni. Out of them Mufaddal Ibn Abi l-Fada’il and al-
‘Ayni were the contemporaries of the event” [14, 291]. This is really the case
however the authors provide the information somewhat later – after some
times as passed. The earliest of them is al-Nuwayri, since his work was writ-
ten in 1314-1331. According to the second author Mufaddal ibn Abi l-Fada’il
(whose work was completed in 1357/58) “the envoys of al-Ashkari, accom-
panied by Georgian envoys, visited the Sublime Porte with a request to re-
turn the monastery of the Holy Cross of Noble Jerusalem. (The monastery)
was seized by Sheikh Khidr in the reign of al-Zahir and remodeled into a
mosque, as stated above. It was returned (to Georgians) based on the deci-
sion of learned people (al-‘ulama’). Indeed, it [the church] cannot be taken
away” [13, 38]. About the same information is preserved in the work of al-
‘Ayni: “in the month of Rajab, the envoys of al-Ashkari – Ruler of Constan-
tinople - visited the Sublime Porte. The envoys were accompanied by
Georgian envoys. They asked for the return of the church of Musallahia
(resp. al-Musallaba) in Jerusalem. Sheikh Khidr had taken it away from
them in the reign of al-Zahir, and returned it based on the decision of
learned people” [13, 37-38]. As mentioned above, the author of the informa-
tion died in 1451. There can be an opinion that data on the return of the
Monastery appeared any time from 1310 till the time when the authors cre-
ated the works. However we’d probably need to take into account the cir-
cumstance that, whatever the case, in the works of the authors - constructed
according to the principle of chronology – the information that we are in-
terested is to be found in the events of 710. We should also note that in
1320, during his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Italian Pipino Francesco –
who visited the Monastery of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, attributed the
ownership of the monastery to Georgians [15, 10, 11, 15]. 
After having clarified the identity of the one who sent envoys to Cairo
in 710/1310-11, G. Japaridze never again touched on the issue of the iden-
tity of the Georgian king who sent envoys in 705/1305-6. However he justly
questioned the possibility of Georgian subordination to the Sultanate of
Egypt under Mongol rule, promised by Georgian envoys: “In 705, according
to al-Maqrizi, Georgians promised to help and support the Sultan whenever
107
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---

he needed, in exchange for the return of the monastery of the Holy Cross.
Subordination to the Sultan of Egypt at the time of Mongolian strength in
Georgia would have been out of question”, claims the scholar [14, 296]. 
In historiography there are different opinions on the identity of the
person who initiated sending envoys in 1305-6. Some scholars refer the
mission of  AH 705 to David VIII  (1293-1311) [6, 45; 12, 97; 9, 478-479];
A. Tsagareli, D. Kipshidze  and S. Kakabadze refer the release of the
Monastery of the Holy Cross to Vakhtang III (1298-1308, or 1304 according
to D. Ninidze), who is at the same time identified with Brtilma, mentioned
in Arab sources. How well are these doubts substantiated?
It is well-known that after the creation of the Il-khan State (1256),
Eastern Georgia fell under its control. From that time on, all the forces of the
kings of Eastern Georgia participated in each war of Il-khans and were the
main buttress for them. In addition to Georgians sources, Arab sources also
provide information about this. According to the latter, Georgians are “sup-
port and reserve for the Hulaguid army, who trust them and rely on them.
Especially the family of Juban and his sons and the remainder of their de-
scendants owing the past kindnesses of Juban to them [the Georgians] …
Juban was a sincere friend to their king BRTLMA..” [4, 77; 13, 51]. Georgian
participation contributed a lot to the seizure of Baghdad in 1258. In the fol-
lowing years Georgians together with Il-khans participated in campaigns
against Egypt several times, and returned to their homeland with trophies.
In 1268-9 “the khan expressed his will to launch a campaign against Egypt
and called on King David with all his forces. There was a fierce warfare
wherein King David and his forces fought as mighty advance-guard. There
was a massacre, with people killed on both sides and it all ended with the
fleeing of the Egyptians… enriched with countless trophies. They came to
Tpilisi [16, 235-236]. Because of the joint Georgian_Il-khan campaigns
against Egypt in the 1270s, Georgians were taken away the monastery of
the Holy Cross. For some time, it was turned into a mosque. At the same
time, Georgians were forbidden to enter holy places on horses and were
only allowed to sit on horses with their legs dropping down on one side
[12. 91]. 
Georgians further continued carrying out similar attacks together with
Il-khans. David, son to Giorgi-Lasha, Demetre the Devoted, Vakhtang III and
Beka – the Atabeg of Samtskhe, all participated in these warr. The Cilician
Armenia and the Rum Sultanate, i. e. all those under the Il-khan control also
participated in this coalition of Georgians and Il-khans. The comment of D.
Gocholeishvili, regarding the hypothesis of B. Silagadze, seems reasonable.
According to this hypothesis, in the times of Ghazan Khan (1295-1304),
after defeat from the Sultan of Egypt, there started a new peaceful era in
the history of relations between Egypt and Georgia [12, 93; 13, 36], since -
as sources illustrate - Georgians also participated in the campaign of
1312/13 of Il-khans against Egyptian mamluks on the territory of Syria [13,
36]. In this situation, any initiative of Eastern Georgia to get closer to Egypt
108
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---