Most of the wars throughout history were started by men...... Several countries have had female rulers yet I cannot recal any of them declairing war......What are your thoughts????
2007-03-26 12:41:28 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
women Don't have balls! But I would like to see you give birth!!!
2007-03-26 13:43:29 · update #1
Queen Boudica of the Iceni(Celtic tribe in Roman Britain) lead a rebellion against the Romans. They gathered other tribes of Celts together and did alot of damage before being beaten by the better organized and more disciplined Romans.
2007-03-26 21:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by michael w 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, let's see.
Up until the year, oh, I don't know, 1950, the percentage of women who ruled countries was about .03% of rulers. Now, the percentage has greatly increased to about 10%! For a whole of 50 years! Well, that looks like a HUGE space of time for a HUGE number of women to start wars!
Also, ever heard of Bloody Mary? No wars, just mass murders, y'know, not the same at all! =) And, pardon me, but do you know about Queen Elizabeth I ordering the privateers to go around CAPTURING Spanish ships, an act of WAR? Also, Golda Meir (sp?)? I am not sure when she ruled, but I think she ruled Israel during some of their wars, and although she did not start them, responded very decisively.
2007-03-26 19:51:10 · answer #2 · answered by Halcyon 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Queen Isabella of Spain kicked out the Moors from Spain in 1492. And Queen Elizabeth of England got involved in wars with Spain. And what about Queen Victoria of the British empire getting into the Crimean War, assorted colonial wars and the Anglo-Boers War? And remember Margaret Thatcher? She sent her navy to fight Argentina in that crazy "Falklands War" of 1982. So women are also quite feisty too. Don't pay attention to militants feminists who claim "history ignores women". Phony baloney!
2007-03-26 19:59:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
All one need do is look to the monarchs of England/Great Britain to give you evidence of wars being started while a woman was in power.
Elizabeth I fought both her former brother-in-law King Phillip of Spain and her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots at different times during her reign. Both wars were extremely significant events in British history.
Mary II helped parliament ursurp her own father in the late 17th century and engaged in an active war with him in Ireland the results of which are still being fought over in Ireland
Mary's sister Anne was involved in a war with the French and I believe the Spanish as well during her short reign.
As to the more modern Queens Victoria and Elizabeth II, I don't think their role in government really put any responsibility for wars fought by the state on them. That said it does bear mentioning that Victoria in particular ruled over the period of the greatest expansion of the British Empire which involved numerous wars such as occurred in Crimea, the Sudan, South Africa and elsewhere. It involved a lot of bloodshed all done in her name and that in itself says something.
2007-03-26 21:11:04 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny Canuck 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well - there was Hatshepsut; she was an Egyptian pharaoh and I'm not sure but I reckon she probably waged war sometime.... her successor (Thutmose...III I think?) sure did, against the persians, anyway.
I don't know if Cleopatra (VII, the famous one) counts - I guess she was sort of sharing power with Anthony.
In my Latin American history class we learned about one warrior woman leader - I guess the ayllus in pre-Incan society were occasionally ruled by women, and there's record of a woman leader going to battle. That's kind of small scale, though, and I can't remember the details... sorry!
2007-03-26 19:58:31 · answer #5 · answered by Cedar 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Men are much more likely to BE in power. Women have only recently gained seats as national leaders in most countries. It would be interesting to research ancient ruling women to see if they fought wars more or less frequently than their male counterparts.
You imply that there is something less war-like about female leaders. It's too early, too little data to make any general assumptions.
2007-03-26 19:46:29 · answer #6 · answered by fdm215 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
she's right- there are less women leaders, but i think women would be less likely to declare war as they tend to be more sensitive
2007-03-26 19:49:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Maybe because their wives were having their periods
2007-03-26 19:51:50 · answer #8 · answered by biggiesmartypants 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One word: testosterone.
2007-03-26 19:51:07 · answer #9 · answered by mustard03 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
women don't have any balls.
2007-03-26 19:49:37 · answer #10 · answered by dumbuster 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋