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.
I believe you mean Zenobia, who ran a petty secessionist kingdom in Palmyra, which was then restored by the first of the great Roman Emperors of the 3rd century, Aurelian.
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.
I believe you mean Zenobia, who ran a petty secessionist kingdom in Palmyra, which was then restored by the first of the great Roman Emperors of the 3rd century, Aurelian.
That sounds right.