Historically, at least in European context, female leadership has resulted in some of the bloodiest wars seen. On one hand, conquest gives them legitimacy. On the other, they're emotional as fuck and rationale plays a small part in their decision process.
It's a similar situation to the Russian theater attack where they gassed it and a few people ended up dying, except instead of trying to take an option with the fewest casualties possible they just shot everyone on sight.
I will never understand why people to this day think that Ghandi was some kind of saint of non-violent protest.
The man was backed by a massive armed militia that took military action to seize towns and ports. We can pretend it's nonviolent because the missions he personally led didn't come to direct physical violence by his forces, yet at the same time his actions were a direct form of political and economic violence meant to render systems inert or under his control.
We don't really have firm numbers on casualties from the Spanish side (probably because just how fractured and inured to conflict Spain was at the time), but Castillian armies were among the largest seen before in Europe during the final years of the Iberian reconquest. Over 100,000 Muslims were killed or captured in the closing years.
Honestly, there's only a handful 2 I can think of off the top of my head. Boudicca was one, and the other was a Persian Queen. Both went to war because they were seeking revenge.
Elizabeth I was attacked
Victoria's reign was relatively peaceful
Joan of Arc was more of an ideological zealot that was used as a propaganda piece
Boudicca revolted because she was violently mistreated.
and the other was a Persian Queen.
I don't think there has ever been a Persian Queen in history.
Catherine The Great also didn't start many wars.
Which reminds me, during the Seven Years War there was a tsarina who was quite devoted to the war against Prussia. She died suddenly when Berlin was being besieged, and her successor Peter III made peace with Prussia - who was then poisoned for his pains, leading to the accession of Catherine.
Joan of Arc was more of an ideological zealot that was used as a propaganda piece
She also was not a ruler.
There are plenty of bad examples of female rulers, of course. Catherine de Medici was responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, which spun out of control and got thousands killed. The odious usurper-Empress Irene blinded her own son who later died from his wounds, so she could rule for five whole years. Anne of Austria, the regent for Louis XIV, was fanatically devoted to the war against Spain - which ironically was ruled by her brother, possible for that reason as she did not want to be seen as a traitor.
That said, these are hardly representative for 'female rulers', and I see no evidence that the female rulers who have been out there made decisions based on emotion and not reason. If anything, they were as machiavellian as the worst men out there.
I don't think there has ever been a Persian Queen in history.
I'm thinking of a woman who became empress of a region in modern day Jordan, that likely wasn't Persia, but I don't remember what it was.
That said, these are hardly representative for 'female rulers', and I see no evidence that the female rulers who have been out there made decisions based on emotion and not reason. If anything, they were as machiavellian as the worst men out there.
I don't really know that we have enough data, tbh.
Historically, at least in European context, female leadership has resulted in some of the bloodiest wars seen. On one hand, conquest gives them legitimacy. On the other, they're emotional as fuck and rationale plays a small part in their decision process.
Like Hitler and Stalin?
Not really talking modern history. Machine guns are certainly a blood multiplier.
Can you give a few examples?
Can you give a few examples here?
There's Indira Gandhi, the first (and only) female Indian Prime Minister, who was so fucking atrocious she was assassinated by her own bodyguards.
While Gandhi was atrocious, the reason she was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard was because she raided some temple sacred to the Sikhs.
By raid do you mean kill hundreds of civilians?
It's a similar situation to the Russian theater attack where they gassed it and a few people ended up dying, except instead of trying to take an option with the fewest casualties possible they just shot everyone on sight.
I will never understand why people to this day think that Ghandi was some kind of saint of non-violent protest.
The man was backed by a massive armed militia that took military action to seize towns and ports. We can pretend it's nonviolent because the missions he personally led didn't come to direct physical violence by his forces, yet at the same time his actions were a direct form of political and economic violence meant to render systems inert or under his control.
Here's a funny article from the New York Times from a decade ago talking about how violence is the only solution and describing the exact tactics used today by leftists.
For the first part, we can look at Isabelle Castile as an example. For the second, we can look at any random woman.
Alright, show me the 'bloodiest wars' waged by Isabelle of Castile.
And you know the second part was about female rulers.
We don't really have firm numbers on casualties from the Spanish side (probably because just how fractured and inured to conflict Spain was at the time), but Castillian armies were among the largest seen before in Europe during the final years of the Iberian reconquest. Over 100,000 Muslims were killed or captured in the closing years.
Really, though, I was just referencing this:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23337/w23337.pdf
Married queens were around 27% more bellicose than their male counterparts.
Honestly, there's only a handful 2 I can think of off the top of my head. Boudicca was one, and the other was a Persian Queen. Both went to war because they were seeking revenge.
Boudicca revolted because she was violently mistreated.
I don't think there has ever been a Persian Queen in history.
Which reminds me, during the Seven Years War there was a tsarina who was quite devoted to the war against Prussia. She died suddenly when Berlin was being besieged, and her successor Peter III made peace with Prussia - who was then poisoned for his pains, leading to the accession of Catherine.
She also was not a ruler.
There are plenty of bad examples of female rulers, of course. Catherine de Medici was responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, which spun out of control and got thousands killed. The odious usurper-Empress Irene blinded her own son who later died from his wounds, so she could rule for five whole years. Anne of Austria, the regent for Louis XIV, was fanatically devoted to the war against Spain - which ironically was ruled by her brother, possible for that reason as she did not want to be seen as a traitor.
That said, these are hardly representative for 'female rulers', and I see no evidence that the female rulers who have been out there made decisions based on emotion and not reason. If anything, they were as machiavellian as the worst men out there.
I'm thinking of a woman who became empress of a region in modern day Jordan, that likely wasn't Persia, but I don't remember what it was.
I don't really know that we have enough data, tbh.