It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study Finds Queens Were Much More Willing to Wage Wars Than Kings

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I guess the next time you hear someone say if women were running things there would be peace and happiness throughout the world. When you hear that refer back to this linked article.

Maybe if the Queen hated her husband she egged him on to go fight "over there" hoping he would not return from battle..?


For their paper “Queens,” published in the journal SSRN, political scientists Oeindrila Dube of the University of Chicago and S. P. Harish, of McGill University studied 193 kings and queens in 18 countries (mostly European) between 1480 CE and 1913. That selection included a few famous warring queens: Russia’s Catherine the Great, Spain’s Isabella I and Britain’s Elizabeth I. They found that states ruled by queens were “all out to get you” – waging war 39% more often than states led by kings. Unfortunately, they also were often “temporarily out of gas” and lost their battles more frequently than male rulers. On the other hand, the research found that queens were more likely to gain territory, making the good ones both hunters AND gatherers.

The researchers theorized that married queens started wars more often that married kings because they could (and did) put their husbands in charge of the military and split the workload – married kings rarely sent their wives into battle or even consulted with them. They also speculated that single queens were attacked more often because they were seen as vulnerable without a husband. In either case, age was not found to be a factor – the queens were aggressive warmongers from youth to their senior years.

mysteriousuniverse.org...




posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Is this another woman hating thread? I guess now all sides are covered. I keep reading how women want refugees in their countries because they are so empathetic, that they only want soft problems and too much tolerance...and now BAM we also start wars.

So basically we are just like any other human in power. What's the point of mentioning it at all in that case?

Do you want women in power or not? Seems to me [compared to all the male leaders in the world and history] that it makes absolutely no difference to anything.

Please people, those in power are all from the same base group Narcissistic psychopaths or they wouldn't be up there in the first place.

As a woman I don't care who is in charge as long as they are fair. The rest can go and...



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Uh oh, looks like someone’s on the monthly warpath. . .



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
Is this another woman hating thread? I guess now all sides are covered. I keep reading how women want refugees in their countries because they are so empathetic, that they only want soft problems and too much tolerance...and now BAM we also start wars.

So basically we are just like any other human in power. What's the point of mentioning it at all in that case?

Do you want women in power or not? Seems to me [compared to all the male leaders in the world and history] that it makes absolutely no difference to anything.

Please people, those in power are all from the same base group Narcissistic psychopaths or they wouldn't be up there in the first place.

As a woman I don't care who is in charge as long as they are fair. The rest can go and...


I am sorry if you were triggered and decided this was a woman hating thread as I just thought it was an interesting study and something I was unaware of before.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things. The same way you can tell racist threads even if OP states clearly that they aren't.

As a woman I feel I have the right to notice and mention if something has an agenda. Or should I just shut up?
Remember us wimminz are warfaring warriors who are also far too tolerant.
So you have no idea who you are dealing with here...



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I don't know about this.

Most of world empires were patriarchal.

But then maybe it is true.

Forced marriages.

One way to get out of it. Sending the hubby off to die.




edit on 23-11-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


They also speculated that single queens were attacked more often because they were seen as vulnerable without a husband.


Yup. This. And sometimes kicked some serious butt, sometimes not.

Britain’s Most Famous Celtic Queen who Brutally Defied the Roman Empire

A woman's protective instinct can be just as strong and fierce as a man's... especially that of a mother protecting her family, and likewise a queen protecting her people.

Who would ever want to find themselves between a mama bear and her cubs???



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things.


At the risk of repeating myself... YUP! You aren't the only one seeing it.

It's not nearly as bad on ATS as elsewhere, but ATS isn't immune either.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I think it’s probably more of a power thing rather than sex. And bloodline. I’m a woman, myself and I’m not surprised. There was a time I would’ve repeated that old saying. But then 2012 happened and men and women went equally insane



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

Seems a bit of an overreaction on your part.


Reading the OP, my impression was that the study was a novel, and interesting endeavor, for the standpoint of how the societally percieved differences in the sexes may affect the way a female ruler may have been forced to act to maintain power, as opposed to a male, in the same situation.

I don't see the validity of jumping to the conclusion that the study was done with chauvinistic/misogynistic intent.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky
I wonder how much training in non-modern history these "poltical scientists" received, because I'm not sure how well they grasp historical situations E.g.

The researchers theorized that married queens started wars more often that married kings because they could (and did) put their husbands in charge of the military and split the workload –

In fact in pre-modern times the power of a married queen would normally be a facade- her policy would be under her husband's control, and her wars would really be her husband's wars. They cite Isabella of Spain, but her wars were those of her consort Ferdinand. Mary Tudor declared war on France because her husband was Philip of Spain. That's why Elisabeth made such a point of keeping herself single. Even Victoria allowed Albert to take over much of her state business.

Unmarried Queens of the Elisabeth type would be deemed vulnerable and forced into defensive wars (which was her situation). In any case, there can hardly be enough of them to provide a useful statistical sample.

There would be a stronger case for looking at female leaders in democracies. Since you can't inherit power in the modern world, any woman who gets to the top has to be of the "fighting" type in the first place- e.g. Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi.



edit on 23-11-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

You do raise a valid point, in the sense that monarchy and democracy are two different situations.

To compare the two seperate studies, however, would probably not lead to any valuable conclusions, precicely because of the circumstantial differences.

Apples and grapefruits



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky Defensive "wars" aren't the same as invading and taking over others. Being a warrior and defending your people is necessary.

If we went to the defense of civilizations that weren't raping/pillaging/invader types, the world would be better. Look what has happened to the Yazidis and Kurds and Afghani tribes that respect women and equality. These should be our allies...defending against the hordes.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776
What would you know about it? Show some respect, perhaps, or continue declaring your irrelevance.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Queens are probably more psycopathic imo so no sueprise they start wars more easily.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
What's that thing about a woman scorned?



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

I look at it this way: historically it was unusual for women to attain and hold power in most societies. Any woman doing so had to be a unique combo of strong willed and ruthless with a very strong support base. This would set any leader, male or female, up to wage war. Like it or not you will find less weak women to balance the strong ones, and strong leaders will go war as will the ruthless ones who climb to power against the odds as women often had to.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I think it's likely that some female leaders over compensated to appear stronger than their male piers.

The battle of the sexes and all that.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Here's a lesser known queen to make you shiver your timbers.

Queen Ranavalona I of Madagascar (lived 1778-1861; her coronation was in 1829).

She was especially vicious in persecuting her own subjects who had converted to Christianity (she allegedly allowed the religion among foreigners though).


Pursuant to the February 26 decree, those who possessed a Bible, worshiped in congregation or continued to profess adherence to Christianity were fined, jailed, manacled, subjected to trial by ordeal, or executed.[41][42] Lurid accounts of the execution and torture of Christians were reported by missionaries with informants on the island who placed emphasis on what they perceived as the savagery of the Queen's actions.[15] For instance, they reported the public execution of 15 Christian leaders near the Queen's palace who were dangled on ropes 150 feet above a rock-filled ravine before the ropes were cut upon their refusal to renounce Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org...

In South Africa an example could be Queen Mmanthasisi (1784-1847).
Her people are alleged to have practiced cannibalism (but at the time, so did a lot of the surrounding tribes), and they wiped out 28 other tribes.
She was rumored to have fed the most "brave" of her warriors with her own breast-milk.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 23-11-2019 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things. The same way you can tell racist threads even if OP states clearly that they aren't.


Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet. Others with a solid head on our shoulders and no victim complex read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join