Henoticon – was it the reflection of the political orientation of kartli or its value choice?

The main aspect of the article is the question whether the choice made by Eastern Georgia (Kartli) was politically or value-orientated. Kartli under King Vakhtang Gorgasali faces a dilemma of choosing between East and West when a question of assent to the document, Henoticon issued by the Byzantine comes forth. For King Vakhtang Henoticon is the choice between East and West, between Iran and Byzantine. Byzantine
is weakened due to religious conflicts. On the other hand, Iran holds rather strong positions. Choosing West requires acceptance of Zenon`s ecclesiastical polity. King Vakhtang decides on Henoticon.
Conflict arises between King Vakhtang and Archibishop Michael. Majority of modern Georgian historians assume that the main reason of disagreement and conflict between the King and the Archibishop was caused by religious belief. However, we consider that this was not the case between King Vakhtang and Archbishop Michael. As King Vakhtang`s historian Juansher mentions Michael was a defender of dyophysitism and King Vakhtang, who was raised by the Archbishop was a staunch Christian. Vakhtang`s firm belief and genuine values led him to the decision to follow protection of Christianity, which was the main value of Georgian identity. In those times King Vakhtang had to support Byzantine which had hard times in terms of religion and politics and which was the only one that could guarantee the maintenance of Christianity in Eastern Georgia. Although Henoticon was unacceptable according to its belief King Vakhtang had to accept the document in order to guarantee a long-term awareness of the society. It is not the case of disagreement between a monophysit-diophysit but that Archbishop and the King have different perceptions. For Michael accepting Henoticon is a religious compromise while for Vakhtang it is protection of the main aspect of Georgian identity. This is where we should seek the reason of the conflict.
Henoticon is analyzed differently by Michael and King Vakhtang. For Michael supporting the document is purely religious act and a deviation from Christianity whereas for Vakhtang the support is the choice made in
order to protect Christianity being the core value of the country. For Georgia Henoticon is not a political act and for Byzantine it is a survival. For Byzantine it is a political act by the name of religion while for Georgia it is a valuable act by the name of politics. What will be the drawback for the country in case of the political choice? It will not be able to fulfill the mission, it will not be able to protect the identity of the country. Vakhtang`s decision is made to support the value of Christianity. If a political decision is made, he must choose relatively stronger Iran but he decides to use weaker Byzantine instead. Vakhtang chooses West not for its geographical or political priorities but for its value of Christianity.
This step taken by the King is his value choice.