Three Treasons: The Battles at Astapor, Yunkai and Meereen

[Bob0]

On 1/2/2020 at 11:40 PM, Universal Sword Donor said:

that doesn't mean that what the Unsullied did was treason.

So, I had a look at historical examples of treason.  In the middle ages (in England), treason was basically an act opposing the king such as if you:

- levied war against the King in his Realm;

- adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

There is no loyalty requirement for an act to be called treason and many non-citizens have been convicted of treason, including some ambassadors from other countries.  The idea of allegiance has come into treason, to limit it as otherwise it would be extremely broad, but it was extremely hard to renounce allegiance once you had it e.g. if you were born or lived in a place you would be considered to have allegiance to and could not renounce it.  In modern times it's now possible to renounce allegiance, however this only helps you avoid doing treason in another country.  If you are in a country you are supposed to follow the rules, so it's still treason if you join a rebellion or something similar, regardless of your nationality.

The idea of allegiance also comes into the U.S. definition of treason:

Quote

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...

This is where people get confused as they assume that non-citizens cannot be convicted of treason, however the supreme court ruled that if you are in the country then you owe a 'temporary allegiance' for as long as you are there and so you could commit treason.

In modern times, very few people are convicted of treason, the most recent ones are citizens (or sort-of-citizens) who have helped a war enemy in another country.  Actions carried out within a country generally break other laws as well, so these are used instead.

So what the Unsullied did can easily be described as treason, definitely in medieval times and even in most modern countries, whether or not you decide that the Unsullied were or were not free.

Quote

slaves have no agency

This is clearly not true of most slaves, check the meaning.  It's not true of the Unsullied either, although the Good Masters would probably have you believe it.  This is how they advertise the Unsullied, but they are shown to be repeatedly wrong in their understanding of them.  They are certainly obedient and don't feel pain but Krazyns says:

The Unsullied need officers set over them - except Daenerys has them elect their own officers and there are no problems, Grey Worm makes a good officer

The Unsullied cannot be tempted by women - except Stalwart Shield goes to a brothel

The Unsullied would not take freedom as a gift - except the Unsullied are happy when freed

 

Their conditioning can be reversed, when they are sold in small numbers they forget who they are.

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, the Unsullied were never as indoctrinated as the Good Masters thought they were.

Arming your own slaves is about as stupid an idea as one can think of, but it is a real thing in history, eg Mamelukes and Janissaries.  But, slave soldiers, like all soldiers, develop bonds of loyalty to their comrades, and eventually conclude, they should be the ones in charge.  With or without Dany, I think the Unsullied would have turned, just as the Mamelukes and Janissaries did.

They went 400 years without doing so