George II of Georgia

George II ruled Georgia from 1072 to 1089 through the catastrophe Georgian tradition remembers as the Great Turkish Invasion, and ended his active reign by handing the crown to his son, David IV the Builder. Born about 1054, he was the son of Bagrat IV and Borena of Alania. His childhood was shaped by the war between his father and Liparit IV of Kldekari: while Bagrat was held in Constantinople, Liparit had the boy crowned king at Ruisi, between 1050 and 1053, under the regency of Bagrat's sister Gurandukht, and his Armenian grandmother Mariam of Vaspurakan remained an influence on him. Bagrat recovered power by 1060 and made George his heir; he succeeded in November 1072.

The early years were not without success. The great nobles rose in 1073 and were bought off with lands; in the mid-1070s George defeated a Seljuk force at Partskhisi, recovered the fortresses the Byzantines held in Klarjeti, Shavsheti, Javakheti, and Artaani, and received from the empire Upper Tao, Kars, and the title of caesar. But from 1079, when Kars was lost, the Seljuks came in force. On 24 June 1080 Turkish armies poured into the southern provinces, and Kars, Kutaisi, and Artanuji fell in turn. George traveled to Malik-Shah at Isfahan and obtained peace in return for an annual tribute; the sultan granted him Kakheti and sent troops for its conquest, but George abandoned the siege of Vezhini, and the settlement brought little relief as nomads occupied the plains. An earthquake in 1088 compounded the misery.

In 1089 George placed the crown on the head of his sixteen-year-old son David. The chronicle passes over the event in a sentence, and modern scholars have suspected a palace coup guided by the bishop George of Chqondidi rather than a free abdication. George lived on as nominal co-ruler, styled king of kings and caesar in documents of 1103 and named in the acts of the Ruis-Urbnisi synod, and died in 1112. By his wife Helena he had one certain child, David, though Matthew of Edessa mentions a daughter, Totorme, whose existence is disputed. Later historians have judged him more kindly than the chronicle did, arguing that no ruler of his resources could have withstood such an invasion.