Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to find an example of successful treason, but haven't found any so far. What I'm looking for:

  • the treason happens at a high level: betraying a country or so
  • the successful side is the one the traitor goes over to
  • the event is documented, not simply legendary

Edit: I'm adding one more criterion:

  • no one knew who the traitor would be before the treason happened

The American Revolution isn't the kind of thing I'm thinking of; everyone knew where the faultlines ran before the revolution began. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, would be closer to what I'm thinking of; he was a trusted American officer who betrayed his own side, but unsuccessfully.

share|improve this question
4  
So we should exclude cases where traitors themselves win and establish their own rule? –  Monster Truck Jun 12 '12 at 12:08

5 Answers 5

up vote 9 down vote accepted

During Persia's invasion of Greece under Xerxes, Ephialtes betrayed the bunch of Greeks at the very strong defensive position at Thermopylae by showing the Persians an alternate path around the pass. This led to the complete defeat of the Greek army and the death of the Spartan king Leonidas, and opening the way to the sacking of Boeotia and Athens. While I can see the argument that this was unsuccessful because the Persians ultimately lost the war, the fact that it gave the Persians control of a decent chunk of Greece for a year and that they lost for a wholly unrelated reason (mostly due to Salamis) would make this at least a short term success.

In the turmoil at the end of Qin, Qing Bu was one of the most important generals of Xiang Yu, who became the hegemon. After the fall of Qin, Liu Bang and Xiang Yu vied for the throne. Qing Bu later joined Liu Bang and attacked Xiang Yu in the rear, and was critical to the eventual defeat of the latter.

Towards the end of the Later Han, Liu Zhang was an independent governor of Yizhou. When he heard that Cao Cao intended to attack his northern buffer state of Hanzhong, he was convinced by his advisor Zhang Song to invite in Liu Bei to help protect Yizhou. However, both Zhang Song and Fa Zheng, who was sent to welcome Liu Bei, were secretly plotting to have him displace Liu Zhang. Despite initially protesting that he could not behave so treacherously to his own kin, Liu Bei eventually found an excuse to act. A number of other generals betrayed Liu Zhang during this conflict and Liu Bei was ultimately successful. Zhang Song didn't live to see it though. He lost his head when his brother informed Liu Zhang of his actions.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't know what you're talking about with respect to the Graeco-Persian wars. It was a pyrrhic victory for the Persians, without doubt; followed by decisive Greek victories in the next decades. –  Noldorin Jun 13 '12 at 21:12
    
Thermopylae was far from a pyrrhic victory for the Persians. Sure, they lost a lot of troops in comparison to the paltry Greek army there, but it was only a small portion of their army and was inconsequential given it neither forced them to reconsider their plans nor make a field encounter more viable for the Greeks. Such a loss of manpower was fully justified by the speed of the victory at a key defensive position. On the ultimate Persian defeat, I've added a bit to the answer to explain why I nonetheless consider this successful. –  lins314159 Jun 13 '12 at 22:12
    
Okay, so I looked into this a bit more... "Pyrrhic" is probably too harsh, although historians seem quite ignorant of the numbers, except that the Persian army was much longer. It's generally thought that the Battle of Thermopylae was of moderate but not overwhelming importance in the Persian wars. Persian losses were much greater by number, but probably not very different by percentage. Historians seem to concur that the battle provided an effective test of military strength, tactics, and techniques against the Persians, as well as a huge psychological/morale boost despite the loss. –  Noldorin Jun 14 '12 at 0:01
1  
In any case, +1 for your expansions. –  Noldorin Jun 14 '12 at 0:02
    
+1, for referring to RoTK events. –  apoorv020 Jun 14 '12 at 13:07

John Harington Epigrams, book iv, Epistle 5:

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

share|improve this answer

Generally, its only called "treason" when the damage isn't mortal. Of course when it isn't mortal, The State has a whole lot more power to go after you than you have to stay out of its power. This is why Machiavelli observed that if you go after "The Prince" in any way, you have to kill him.

Basically, either The State falls, and you are considered a hero by the victors (who get to write history using nicer words for you) or The State doesn't fall, and going after you is its top priority for the rest of your life. So any list of successful treasons is going to have a caveat on either the word "successful" or the word "treason".

share|improve this answer
    
Not necessarily. Benedict Arnold for instance is an example of unsuccessful treason. –  Opt Jun 13 '12 at 18:39
    
@Sid - I'm confused. What part of this answer do you believe Benedict Arnold's activites contradicts? –  T.E.D. Jun 13 '12 at 19:51
    
Your last paragraph seemed to imply that if you commit treason and the State against which you did so doesn't fall, you'll be persecuted for the rest of your life by that State which I don't think is always true. –  Opt Jun 13 '12 at 21:23
    
@Sid - BA's plot (to turn over West Point to the enemy) was unsuccessful. If it had worked, and the USA survived the incident, this argument implies his life would have been rather different afterwards than it was. Even so, he still was forced into exile in Canada (and only then did he become a "turncoat" and start fighting for the Brits). –  T.E.D. Jun 13 '12 at 22:03

British rule over the indian subcontinent started with a treason. Mir Jafar betrayed the local Nawab and went over to the Brits, paving way for the British Raj.

share|improve this answer

As I have read many times, the founders of USA were conducting treason. Given that they declared independence, I guess that view can be upheld. They definitely switched sides (to their own, of course). They betrayed an Empire to do so, so I think all three conditions are met.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 You beat me to the answer. I thought of this when I saw the question, but I just woke up an hour ago (because of time zones) and was asleep when the question was posted. –  American Luke Jun 12 '12 at 12:40
1  
Indeed; this may not be the most textbook example, but it's technically very much treason still. –  Noldorin Jun 13 '12 at 21:13

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.