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