There is a popular saying in Saingilo, one of the Georgia’s hard fate regions: “Life means struggle, and those who fail to be alert and sharp-witted, are doomed to lose”. It is the fate’s irony, too, that the proverb directly reflects the adventurous history of Georgia, because our chronicle of “Bedi Kartlisa” is practically nothing else, except the constant repetition of fights and wars with ever-aggressive enemies and centuries of floods of blood, a long span of history “the Georgians trusted the God Almighty and their right hand. Our people, exhausted from an uneven fight with overwhelming forces, hardly had a moment to sigh and relax, and ending the battle, he had to un-sheath his sword almost immediately and embark on a new trial and challenge; the weakened country and wasteland resembled a military camp. So, the idea we meet in the typicon of Petritsoni Georgian monastery (1084) deserves to be shared completely: “Strong are we Georgians in our kin, raised as warriors and accustomed to the torrent of misfortunes” (29, p.36) (see page 191). That very experience of the past provides the force and spiritual strength and wisdom of our folklore:

According to Teimuraz Batonishvili : “…True, we are not many, but the centuries-old manner of ours, of people of many regions of Georgia, dictates the invariable rule of behavior – you are bound to attack all enemies you meet on the way – otherwise a man is risking to lose the image of a he-man and a hero, he will lose the moral right to appear at home or in public, and the spoiled name shall mar his further existence to the point that he will crave for death rather than continue that kind of existence” (33, p.27)
To the top

Earlier, Vakhushti Bagrationi wrote about the Tushis: “…peradventure someone proves himself cowardish in heart, preferring to evade the battle, he will be fed not with people but with dogs, from their trough, and never again with humans…” (23, p.554).

We cannot be mistaken in presumption of that particular attitude of obsession with heroic resistance being paramount in the whole story of our past; the philosophy of permanent alertness and courage helped the nation to survive and made many outer enemies reconsider their determination on the elimination of the Georgian people.

It is interesting to remember what Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani explained in his “Sheath of words”: “Age – the measure of men”; “God created a human in his image and filled the objects with soul and spirit of reason by force of word. But a human is used as a name in general and is divided into a man and a woman, and the moment a woman marries a man she is called a wife, and the man – a husband, and who they give birth to, is called a child, a son is used for the male child, a daughter – for the female, and until the period of their old age they are called a man and a woman. Yet, from birth till the age of five, an infant boy is called “chvili” and an infant girl –“chvila”; from the age of five – till the age of ten, a boy is called “usuari” and a girl “usuara”; from ten to fifteen – a boy is called “ninveli”, and a girl – “ninvela”; the age between fifteen and twenty was the period when a male youth was called “krma”, and a female – “krmai”, from the age of twenty to thirty, they were called “chabuki” and “chabuka” correspondingly, and later on – a completed man, till the age o fifty; after that period, both males and females are called old he is called old, “beberi” and “bebera”, and people past that age are considered decrepit, and those with white beard are called venerable and respectable.” (39, pp.68, 359-360).

It seems, the given gradation of ages (0-5 years – chvili, 5-10 – usuari, 10-15 – ninveli, 15-20 – krma, 20-30 – chabuki, 30-50 – complete man, 50 – old), is based on the ancient Georgian tradition that is reflected in the ethnographic material of Eastern Georgian highlands in Pshavi and Khevsureti: according to it, the age groups are determined in another way: 1-14 – balghi, 15-30 – kma, 30-50 – middle aged, 50 – and later –aged, an old man, a respectable old man” (38, p.65).

Unfortunately, only few generations of Georgians have ever felt the joy of sweet childhood and youth, because of the wrong movement of the wheels of history and endless warfare. Most of the generations had to join the life of struggle with hardships of life and battles and wars from their early age, and their swords were always ready and in use. A Khevsurian narrator mentions that “fifteen year-old boys, the good ones and strong, had their sabers hung on their belts”(38, p.65). It is also significant that two great figures of our past, Vakhtang I Gorgasal and David IV Aghmashenebeli, put the load of the care and leadership of their homeland at the age of 15-16, at the age of early youth and notwithstanding their young age and inexperience, both of them managed to deal with and solve the problem of Georgia’s political maturing.
To the top

G.Lomtatidze, an archaeologist, provides an interesting description of the Georgian warriors’ ammunition, a description which is based on the abundant material of archaeological excavations and findings of the end of the II millennium B.C., and the beginning of the new era: “For their warfare, our ancestors used daggers, Kolkhian axes, Iberian picks, spears, pikes, lances, various types of arrows, bronze-head maces, bronze-covered shields, pointed helmets, waist and belly protecting belts and the like. In view of all that, it is hardly a mistake to suppose that our ancestors’ nature and spirit were definitely militant. Even the tombs and graves of thirteen-fifteen year-old lads show they were buried with weapons. The same characteristic is applied to Kartvelian tribes by their approximate contemporaries” (78, p.124).

It goes without saying, that so early an “attachment” to weaponry, as well as the variety of the latter – and their specific use, required a systematic training and perfection of combat skills. Systematic training was compulsory in throwing javelins, spears and in using bows and arrows, daggers and pikes, as well as in horse-riding, and other drills in martial arts… The culture and tradition of physical training of that period had a definite military concept” (63, p.7).

The comparison of existing written sources with ethnographic data proves that since ancient times there had existed in Georgia a harmonious system of the population’s military and physical training (“a warrior breeding”), aimed at true and correct upbringing of every single youth, to make him physically fit, strong and enduring, to develop the qualities indispensable for courageous and alert soldiers, ever-ready for military campaigns and raised in the tradition of respect to and love of the militant spirit so close to the character of the nation.

An Italian missionary of the XVII century, Don Christophoro Di Castelli, in Megrelia “…all are well-trained in the use of weapons and arms. They use bows and arrows, and very crooked daggers… Here people become accustomed to shooting from their childhood”(15, p.57). Besides, he also expresses his amazement at the qualities of adroitness and militant dexterity of Georgian women: “Those who have ever seen Georgian women on horseback, galloping, cannot help believing the women to be Amazons – so equal they seem to men in the skills of horse-riding”(15, p.102); “The Svani women are trained in using arms, particularly, in archery and throwing javelins”(15, p.93).

Another Italian missionary, Don Archangelo Lamberti (XVII c.), underlines the fact that “The Megrels…are used to warfare; to the point that parents take along their children to army and battles, where they become accustomed to the life of hardships. The children use arms – shields, bows and arrows and swords as naturally, as if they are born with the experience to fight. All of them are so keen in acquiring the skills and be equal to the task, that they always have ready the things and items needed to be taken to the field and they never tire the best horse except for the special occasion of getting on the march; the same attitude goes with the saving of the best food for special purposes; and the arms they possess are in ever-ready condition for the case of emergency. Besides, even resting in bed, they keep at the bedside their bows and arrows, shields and swords, armoury and wrist-protectors. I cannot think of any other army, ready for the field in the exemplary manner the Megrels display, and their beautiful attire is gleaming so much, one cannot find a parallel in any other place” (16, pp.82-84).
To the top

The study of written sources proves that an important form of training in physical conditions and martial arts in Georgia of the feudal period was frequent tournaments and festive hunting. Special studies prove that the latter was a kind of a display of vassal relationships in that epoch. Then all vassals were bound to take part in getting on the march for hunting, or the royal hunting, which was considered a form of training in warfare and maneuvering; among the non-feudal participants of the hunt, a social group of servants was bound to take part, too. With the collapse of the Georgian kingdom, the custom of festive hunts also ended (XV c.) (99, p.149). Still, hunting did remain as a kind of sports for feudal lords – apart from being a physical training provider and a kind of sport, which made it very popular among feudal lords (63, p.47).

In one of the most colourful regions of Georgia – Khevsureti, the system of physical training in martial arts, assigned a special role to fencing; the boys start to learn that art at the age of 6-8. They used wooden swords and whicker shields. The boys were usually taught in groups, with adult instructors teaching them special skills and correcting their movements in action at training sessions. A Khevsurian boy of 15, already trained in the art of fencing, was to receive metal arms and continue the perfection of his skills with a new set of armour (63, pp.16-17). Eventually, he would make a perfect warrior, a master in combat and art of fencing; and as an acknowledgement of that tradition was a rule, established at the court of kings of Kartli and Kakheti, who had Khevsurians for royal guards.

The highlanders, in general, had always paid special attention to the physical condition and fitness (Tushis, Pshavelis, Mokheves, Mtiulis, Gudamakrelis, Svans), which always proved very reliable and able, providing for mobile and strong military forces in the battles.

After what we mentioned, it is not surprising that apart from Georgian historians, the best qualities of warriors we have described above, were also noted by foreign observers and contemporaries as well.

Prince Vakhushti Batonishvili describes Georgians as “…enduring, unrivalled in riding and warfare, smart and quick, impressive looking in campaigns, admirers of armour.”(23, p.44).

Ioane Bagrationi writes that “…Georgians are equally caring for one another in times of joy and in times of sorrow; courageous, and victorious over their enemies, good at horse-riding and long marches, lovers of armour and horses”(30, p.553).

In Plutahch’s “Selected Biographies” (I c. A.D.) it is said that “In tribes fighting with Pompey, the Iberians were hardly less in number than Albanians, but in courage – they exceeded all others.” (4, p.330).

Al Umar, a XIV century Arab author writes of Georgians: “as for the Georgian army, they are firm in their faith and religion of the cross and are brave and courageous. Muslims call them Al Kurd, Christians – Al Kurj. They are the strength and richness of the Hulaguiant army, and the Hulaguians trust them and rely on them” (8, p.51).
To the top

The note of Bernhard von Breidenbach, a German traveller of the XV century, informs that the Kartvelians (Georgians) are “a very militant and strong nation, possessing numerous knighthood… In spite of inumerable surrounding infidels, the people are still not afraid of anything… They are allowed to enter - and leave Jerusalem, without paying any tax and with their flags waving above their heads” (7, pp.77-79).

The XV century Italian author also considers Georgians “Very good in wars and battles” (9, p.38).

Jean Chardin’s words repeat the same idea of Georgians: “… they are unreserved and courageous”(13, p.321).

A letter of a Carmelite father, dated 1705, reveals to us that “In the realm of the Persian army, the Georgians were considered the most courageous soldiers” (12, p.53).

A French traveller, Francois Ferdinand de Treuiuelle (XVIII), reports: “This nation of Georgians is very strong, when united. They are good in fencing and they fight hard for their native land; they resist Turks and do not want to resign to them; because of that, the Georgians have to indulge in battles rather often, but the moment they succeed and win, they put their arms aside” (94, p.302).

In 1715-1718, a Russian Ambassador to Iran, Artiom Volynsky, gave an interesting opinion concerning the military abilities and potential of the Georgians: “The Georgian army I consider the best military force of Iran in the whole. Georgians are genuine warriors. I learned that in Georgia it is possible to make an army of 12-20 thousand. As a rule, Georgian princes are appointed to the posts of Iranian military commanders. Likewise, mostly the Georgians are nominated to major military posts there. Earlier, at the times of great Shah Abbas, and also during the period of reign of his other predecessors, the Iranians achieved their victories over the Turks, Indians and other nations, mostly by the help of Georgians… If Georgian princes and the nobility manage to reach an agreement and concord among themselves, they will certainly succeed not only in liberating themselves from the Persian yoke, but will also manage to conquer the Persian territory itself. An Iranian cavalry shall never defeat the Georgians, even thrice as much in number; so, if we replenish the Georgian army with our 20 regular squadrons, we shall easily conquer the whole Persia – together with the Georgians.” (48, p.260).

Friedrich Bodenstadt (XIX c.) from Germany described Georgians as “belonging to the most courageous and the most honest nations of the world; they are… hospitable, reliable, as their swords, swift and smart as their horses, brave in battles and warm-hearted at home” (19, p.123).

A Persian traveller of the XIX century, Majid-os –Saltane, in his “Description of the city of Tbilisi”, underlines: “…Georgians, in general, are well-known for their peacefulness and bravery. It is widely known, that in their battles with Tartars and Persians, they showed a great deal of heroism and courage; in the war of Russia against the Turks, the victory was achieved through the decisive role of the Georgian cavalry. Many Georgians even volunteered to join the battle…”(20, p.40).
To the top

Unfortunately, the military talent of Georgians, as well as their heroic spirit and exemplary energy, has never been utilized for the good of their own country. “…Quite infrequently, the hardness of their swords served in increasing the fame of their own conquerors. It is known, that quite a few Georgians played the major role at the royal courts of Egypt, Persia and Turkey, for which they were lavishly endowed by the rulers” (113, p.10). Many Georgians made military carriers in Russia. For the fame of Russia, Georgian soldiers led a heroic struggle during the reign of Peter the Great. In the war against Sweden, together with a number of Georgians, took part also Alexander, King Archil’s son, who was made the chief of artillery (General-Feldzechmeister) by the order of Peter I. That post was then introduced for the first time, and Alexander became the first in the Russian Army to get that rank. During the reign of Paul I, the Inspector of the Russian Artillery was General-lieutenant Ambersadze. It is also known that the Georgians, exiled to Russia, made a hussar regiment (63, p.52); and it is also known that 12 Georgian generals participated in the Borodino battle (Petre Bagrationi – one of the greatest Russian commanders, among them), the so-called “Georgian grenadier regiment” played an active role in the operation of capturing Shamil, thus determining the outcome of the Caucasian war in favour of the Russians, and in World Wars I and II, one million Georgians participated in the armies of Tsarist Russia and the USSR, wearing the uniform greatcoats of a foreign country, and half of them killed and mutilated (see pages 244-245).

However, paradoxical this may sound, the Georgians spilled no less of their blood in wars of and the service for other countries, than they had for their own, and the courage they displayed in wars of other countries – exceeded sometimes the amount they showed in the defense of their land. How can this be explained? Maybe, the Georgians, torn away from their homeland and put in the service of foreigners, become more purposeful daredevils and the created conditions make certain corrections in their ethnic centralism. In the environment of foreigners, a Georgian becomes more mobilized, trying to do his utmost in order to earn the maximum of trust and respect from his foreign master – even the hated one – in order to predetermine his own military or some other career. At the same time, he also cares a lot about his own ethnic reputation and the warrior’s name, so, fighting under a foreign flag in the manner of desperado, playing with death is a kind of revenge on his own ill-fate. This may be also considered as a peculiar demonstration of patriotism, that made a secret of the true nature of Georgians that the enemies had been trying to uncover – in their strife to learn the truth about the nature of this people, and since that would have made it easier for them to determine the right political course in regard to Georgia.

We believe that whatever the answer to this question, one point is certainly clear: - Georgians, indeed, are a nation of great military traditions, inherited from ancient times, and still possess a rather high level of military organization, as well as corresponding terminology.

For the concept of “army”, various terms were used at various periods: “eri”, “mkhedroba”, “spa”, “lashkari” and “jari”. The origin of the first two terms is Georgian, the other three words are borrowed from Persian.

In his “Bunch of words”, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani explains : “Eri – signifies a man or men of the world, an army (jari)”, “lashkari – great army for warfare”, “spa – cavalrymen”, “jari – numerous people, number of people” (39, pp.241,408; 40, pp.108, 452).

An old Georgian term “eri”, which signified “people” and “army”, must have originated in the epoch of the military democracy, when the concept of “people” and “army” was indivisible. In the beginning of the Middle Ages, a Persian word “sepah” was introduced into Georgian as “spa”; it took the place of the Georgian “eri” – the meaning of the latter became more limited and mostly signified “people”. Apparently, together with “spa”, “mkhedroba” was in parallel use, although, for undetermined reasons, it did not become so widely used, as “spa” of the Persian root. Beginning from the IX century, a new-Persian term “lashkari” was accumulated and became frequently used and then, by the end of the Middle Ages, it totally eliminates the previous term “spa”. As for “jari”, which is also implanted in the Georgian language – from the Persian, and alike the ancient Georgian “eri”, it also implies both semantic nuances of “jari” - as “people” and “army” or “military unit”.
To the top

Initially, the Georgian army consisted of the masses of free yeomen-warriors (eri), and each member, capable of active participation in military operations, was to take part in the campaigns. But in the course of history, “eri” underwent a social differentiation, and in tune with the increasing process of feudalizing, the participation in military campaigns and marches became a matter of social privilege of a military-administrative rank – of “aznaurs” (“azats”, i.e. free) and servants (ministerialitet). According to the documents of special category, at an early stage of feudalism, the army (lashkari) of the kingdom of Kartli, consisted of: 1.Tadzreulis (palace camp) – a regiment of heavily armed palace cavalry, under the leadership of a “spaspeti”; 2. A country (communal) regiment, under the leadership of “eristavis” (“eri-heads”), that consisted of noblemen-cavalrymen, from the patrimonial-servicemen aristocracy – and also, of common yeomen-soldiers from plains, and of highlanders, organized according to their clans, who took part in campaigns as the infantry (“mkvirtzkhlni” – the “swifts”); 3. “Nijadi”, or “hired” – usually, Caucasian highlanders. The separate parts (“sadroshoebi” - “regiments under the banner”) of the regiments from the valleys and plains were under the supervision of spasalari, atasistavi, asistavi and atistavi. Their commander-in-chief was a king or a spaspeti – “the person next to the king”, erismtavari… The social constitution of the army was reflected in arms and ammunition: the nobility wore shirts of mail or hauberks with metal protectors for neck and nose, leg- and arm-protectors, metal belts and had arms for self-defense and for the attack of bronze and iron, a long pick (horoli), chuglugi (an ax-pick), a shield, bows and arrows, “gurzi” and “lakhti” - various maces, and knifes. The horses of noblemen were protected with the horse “mail-shirts”, but for the infantry, the shirts of mail were not obligatory, they could use a light type of protective ammunition, but their arms included: a spear or a short lance, bows and arrows, slingshots, knives and skin-covered shields.

At the period of advanced feudalism, the evolution of lashkari reached its final form, and serving in it was obligatory for landlords, servicemen and free mountaineers. As for the peasantry, they took part in military campaigns only in the cases of war with the foreign invaders, but they were not required to serve in campaign-hunts (military service) (101, p.481).

The greatest role in the creation of the organized military force, belongs to King David IV the Builder. It is completely his achievement – the creation of a huge military machine, which provided the country with the real force needed, which transformed Georgia into one of the strongest states of the Asia Minor, and the Georgians under the royal flag of Gorgasal-Davitiani, amazingly heightened their ethnic and political authority, and the fame of the nation as “militant and powerful people” became almost world-wide.

In the reign of David IV, a post of amirspasalari (minister of military affaires) was introduced, the number of noblemen in the regiments of tadzreuli and servicemen was increased, a royal guard (monaspa) of 5 thousand warriors was established, and an army of Kivchagis was founded with 40 thousand soldiers, also a so-called “shore system” was created, and strong discipline in the army became of paramount importance.
To the top

During 100-year-long of wars with Turk-Seljuks, King David and his heirs (Demetre I, Giorgi III, Queen Tamar), “the Georgians worked out a flexible military organization, fitting to the existing social and economic structure, and managed to annihilate the military superiority of the enemy – derived from their social and economic structure; it also ensured the safety of Georgian borders from the attacks of marauding enemies, and at the same time, provided the possibility of offensive battles on the enemies’ territory – to the extent that the military organization of Turkish nomads failed against it. The structure of the Georgian organization implied: 1. The state army, consisting of the representative regiments of various regions of Georgia – from the centralized Saeristavo and the royal domain; 2. “Darbasis eri” – “the Palace Force”, or Tadzreulis (the Templars) - a regular army/regiment of the court noblemen or low social rank soldiers, usually of a limited number, yet, compiled of the best-skilled warriors; 3. Regiments at the court from the vassal states. It required ten days to get the whole army ready” (92, p.211). When discussing the situation during the reign of Queen Tamar, specially should be mentioned a so-called “monapireta” institution, which signifies a special role of bordering bodies and units, i.e. “the rangers“. A monapire was of the same type as an eristavis, but of the border-line of the country and state. Their basic duty was the scouting of the neighbouring region. They were in charge of the military force of the corresponding country, defending their own strip of land from the pillage of enemies, and at the same time, did not let the neighbouring country lead a quiet life on their territory… At the end of the XII century, the royal court of Georgia had 6-7 of this type of border centers, where the functions of the rangers were carried out by devoted noblemen and military and political officials of Queen Tamar: Grigolisdze and Makhatlisdze – in the regions of Hereti and Kambechani, Zakharia – in the region of Gagi, Zakharia and Ivane Mkhargrdzeli – in Tashir-Zorakert, Sargis Tmogveli and Shalva Toreli – in Javakheti, Kuarkuare – Spasalari of Samtskhe – Jakeli – in Artaani, Zakharia Aspanisdze – in Panaskerti” (92, p.212).

Definitely, this system of military organization makes the topic of Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi’s particular explanation: “And the armies had their rules and order: the kings had their guard, considering the conditions and abilities, as a strong and reliable body, corresponding to the old tradition of kings – Mirian and Davit Aghmashenebeli, a thousand for the permanent guard, but their salary did not come from the treasury, because the way of their reward was different. And other regiments were under the supervision of the state and eristavis, who were in charge of summoning the regiments at times of war and danger” (23, p.18).

Although the great scholar did not mention the various institutions of military structure, the lack cannot affect the creation of a proper idea about all the forms of a Georgian military forces and the military organization of the country in general (1.Various types of regiments, compiled of the non-free servicemen, 2. Royal guard, 3. Hired army, 4. Communal regiments, 5. Border defenders or rangers (see page 193).
To the top

In the light of written sources, we can discuss the military, administrative and the territorial structure of the unified Georgia. On the basis of studies of the old Georgian chronicles, in the XII-XIII centuries, Georgia was divided into large and small regions – sadroshos, and a regiment taken from that territorial unit, constituted a separate military and tactical unit in wars, and was supervised by one commander. Every unit had its sadrosho banner. As it is described by Vakhushti: “…Their rule was to divide the whole Iveria or Georgia into four sadroshos, the avant-garde was compiled by Toreli, Tsikhisjvarnis and Akhaltsels, and their following regiment consisted of Meskhs, Klarjis, and Armenians, who were in their possession; the right wing of attackers were the people from Abkhazeti and Jiketi – across the Likhi range; the left wing of attackers was of Heres and Kakhetians, and the king’s flag bearers were the Kartvels (here Kartveli is used as a synonym of Kartleli G.G.) and the regiment at the king’s disposal, and their orders were issued by the king or commander-in-chief” (23, p.30).

This excerpt shows that in the Golden Age of the united monarchy of Georgia, the country was divided into 4 major sadroshos: 1. avant-garde (of southern Georgia), 2. right flank (western Georgia), 3. left flank (eastern Georgia – Hereti-Kakheti), and 4. Royal (central – Shida Kartli), accompanied by a hired army – Roki spa. These major sadroshos consisted of smaller units of Saeristavo. As a commander of his territorial regiment, an eristavi was in charge of a special banner. The Georgian amirspasalari – commander-in-chief was the head of 12 droshas, each of them consisting of 1000 soldiers… The joint action of all regiments took place only in exceptional cases of danger or some decisive battle… But mostly the battle was started by the avant-garde and ended by the king’s sadrosho (100, p.623-624).

Comparing Vakhushti’s note on the division of entire Iveria into four major sadroshos – to the documents describing the wars of the XII-XIII centuries, and the military units of the Georgian army, and the personalities of that period, we shall learn that the reconstruction of military order and constituent parts of the army, is not at all a complex problem. The analysis of those sources reveals that at the period of country’s political strength, the army of the state consisted of following 6 major units:

The attacking regiments, the avant-garde and flanks, and the rearguard, too, presented a state army (or the communal army), “under the supervision of eristavis, and summoned when their help was required”, while the Mona spas, Tadzreulis and Roki spa were under a direct supervision of the king (the royal guard) (see page 192).
To the top

It is extremely significant that the presented order of the national army according to the regional banners-sadroshos, is in full harmony with the general tradition of historical and territorial division of the Georgian historical homeland. Even at a glance at the map, it is easy to understand that the order of the army we discussed, naturally corresponds to the territorial structure of the country. For instance, due to the natural protection of the Caucasus from the North, Meskheti and Kvemo (Lower) Kartli had to meet first the invasion of the hordes of enemies from the South. Due to this historic conformity, the inhabitants of Georgia – Meskhs and Somkhitars of Kvemo Kartli, naturally appeared in the position of the defending/attacking avant-garde of the army. The same approach is applicable – and explains the principle and order of the ways and conditions of the representative regiments of other countries (72).

We can sum up the issue with the point that at the “Golden Period” of the Georgian statehood, the problem of military organization and the art of military wisdom were brought to the highest level – with following brilliant results. During the period of 106 years, the Georgian army won four great victories over the Seljuk Turks in the battles of Ertsukhi (1104), Didgori (1121), Shamkori (1195) and Basiani (1205), to the point that in 1210, the royal regiment of Queen Tamar carried out a long convoy to Iran, and returned safely to their homeland with great spoils.

Unfortunately, such a triumphal progress was stopped by the Mongols invasions (XIV c.), when – using the chronicler’s words, “the fate and the luck of the flag of Davitians, so highly esteemed, turned back” and “changes in destiny of the kin of Georgians started”. No wonder, that the process of political degradation determined the dismantling of the military organization as well, for which case Vakhushti notes with sorrow: “Yet, following the division and collapse of the kingdom… the army ceased to exist any more, and inferior nobles of small regions and peasants in service – mostly highlanders – became the defenders of the king, till they themselves became the subjects of the eristavi-institution. And it was decided to introduce the principle of responsibility: for Imeretians – it was Racha and Lechkhumi, and for Kakhetians – Kiziki, and for times of campaigns, eristavis and feudals were required to take along the people ascribed to them, whom they were in charge of. But the number of sadroshos was four, as we described – Kartli, Imereti and Kakheti. But this was ordered by kings, since their income shrank and became unfit to support the army they had, so, for the task of defense against the invaders and enemies, the kings ordered their noblemen, eristavis and rulers, to participate fully in the campaigns, and likewise, the peasants were also supposed to participate – according to the number each feudal was in charge of…” (23, p.31).

Yet, in spite of the collapse of the ancient military organizational system, the traditions of warfare remained intact, and people were still capable of mobilizing their faculties (according to the well-known principle of “all men – all soldiers”), and they still managed to revive the memory of their forefathers’ past feats and heroic deeds. True, the looming danger of the physical extinction influenced Georgians to find various possibilities for their self-preservation, and they often displayed flexible abilities to evade the raging invaders destructive policies (as Prince Ioane Batonishvili recommended: “Fighting with great kings is always perilous, so we have always to try not to anger them” – 32, p.23), still, war did remain the most effective means of getting rid of acute problems and finding the sole way out from the deadlock, history often puts small nations into. Thus, the nation did not cease to fight; it often lost, but more frequently used to win, and kings and military commanders like Luarsab I, Simon I, Tsotne Dadiani (see pages 194-197), Giorgi Saakadze, Erekle II, Solomon II, who fought against the Muslims all their lives, in order to ensure Christianity for the Georgians, and who provided the country with a great deal of examples of their personal courage and endurance”.

The XIX-XX centuries revealed the traditions of warfare Georgians had – in the wars of the Russian Empire, and if approaching the case from the point of view of percentage, it will show that the Georgians provided for bigger number of victims of wars, as well as of heroic deeds – if compared to the corresponding data on Russians.