ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Queens at war

A historical study of European queens produces some unexpected results:
After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.

Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”

The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.
Ironically, as Nate pointed out, this means that female leaders are more strongly correlated with warfare than religion. And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

Labels: ,

54 Comments:

Anonymous Wyrd March 12, 2016 1:45 AM  

Dear God, I've stalled out on the 8th volume of Durant's The Story of Civilization series because I'm so tired of hearing about upper-class whores in charge.

Anonymous Rolf March 12, 2016 1:59 AM  

Weakness invites attack. Not a new axiom. Just a newly researched specific case.

...and the defense ministers of how many European nations are female?

(holy cow. At least 9: Slovenia, Georgia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Germany, Norway, Albania, The Czech Republic, The Netherlands.)

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 12, 2016 2:02 AM  

Thomas Jefferson writes in his memoirs that Marie Antoinette called the shots, oppressed the peasants, and Louis was too much of a bitch to shut her down.

Anonymous Icicle March 12, 2016 2:03 AM  

Did anyone watch Alice in Wonderland?

Blogger maniacprovost March 12, 2016 2:23 AM  

Absurd. If this were true, then Germany would be under invasion right now.

Anonymous Dikaios Rik March 12, 2016 2:32 AM  

First comment on the article:
It could just be because the men around them and their countries won't accept leadership by women and so seek to overthrow them triggering wars in response by the women to protect their position....

It wuz da ebil menz. Anything to protect the FI.

Anonymous Ed March 12, 2016 2:36 AM  

Looking at the title, i thought this would be another Shapiro post.

Anonymous Discard March 12, 2016 2:53 AM  

2. Rolf: If you don't really have an army, you don't really need a defense minister.

Anonymous Snick March 12, 2016 2:59 AM  

Rolf makes an interesting observation here. Most of that list are in real deep kimchi too thanks to those dumb bunnies.

Anonymous Osprey March 12, 2016 3:02 AM  

Quite a few queens had to fight off usurpation attempts. This was especially likely if the queen was the first woman to rule her country in centuries. For example, Matilda, Isabella of Castile, and Maria Theresa.

And sometimes, the queen was a usurper. For example, Catherine the Great. (Wikipedia notes that "she made up her mind when she came to Russia to do whatever was necessary, and to profess to believe whatever was required of her, to become qualified to wear the crown.")

Anonymous Chico and the Man March 12, 2016 3:03 AM  

Explains why Bang Ki Moon called for more female leaders of "peacekeeping" missions during the recent women's day celebrations

OpenID randkoch March 12, 2016 3:08 AM  

Discard wrote:If you don't really have an army, you don't really need a defense minister.

You don't need a big army if you use enough nukes.

Blogger John rockwell March 12, 2016 3:27 AM  

Another reason why there should not be female heads of state. There are also other objections raised by one of the Reformers:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

Blogger Kona Commuter March 12, 2016 3:38 AM  

Shush

Ya'll didn't get the memo. If women were in charge there wouldn't be wars (I was told this repeatedly at University)

Blogger Jon M March 12, 2016 3:40 AM  

Manic, right now Germany *is* under...

oh.

Clever.

Blogger Doom March 12, 2016 3:45 AM  

Let me get this straight. Are you, or are you not, married. While it's nice when academics, possibly, stumble onto something... who needs it. Just marry, or even be with a woman for a long time. War... huh... good God y'all.

I would guess that there would have been more war, there simply wasn't enough coin to start, or return on investment beyond a certain point. Now... it would be interesting to see when those decisions were made, in line with their cycle. Oh yes, it would.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2016 March 12, 2016 3:46 AM  

It's been theorized that the American mind set has always regretted the war of independence and has been seeking a replacement monarchy ever since. Think the Kennedy dynasty, the Bush ..., the Clinton ..., the Kardashian dynasty.

It could be argued that Hillary, Queen Clinton, has orchestrated the mother of all wars in the Syrian conflict. One from which there is no extrication, no way out, no dignified finish. ISIS< to ISIL to Hillary's legacy in bodybags and the fall of Europe?

With female secretaries of state the count in body bags is impressive. Queens of politics indeed.

Blogger Aeoli Pera March 12, 2016 4:21 AM  

My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence.

Blogger Noah B March 12, 2016 5:06 AM  

"And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war."

Not for a feminist. Clearly the increased likelihood of war is a result of patriarchal aggression directed at strong wymyn Queens by rival male rulers. Wymyn were perceived to be threatening because of their intrinsically amazing wymyn skills and had to be deposed at any cost. So of course there were more wars, because men with small penises were threatened.

Blogger Phillip George March 12, 2016 5:37 AM  

Albright was one of the leading proponents of NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, so much so that many referred to the operation as “Madeleine’s War.”

https://youtu.be/1FaPuBUY558

Here's how Madelaine deals with disgusting Serbia when she doesn't have bombers to drop bombs on them.

https://youtu.be/1FaPuBUY558 the 1.02 second mark explains women in politics perfectly

Blogger Escoffier March 12, 2016 6:42 AM  

PhillipGeorge©2016 wrote:
With female secretaries of state the count in body bags is impressive.


Aeoli Pera wrote:My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence.

I would wonder if Queens were more likely to plunge their nations into morass wars where there is no real objective or end point?

Also, I think as a quick and dirty rule of thumb anyone who wants the authority to propose wars should have been punched in the face at some point in their lives by someone who really doesn't like them. Just a thought.

Anonymous Queen March 12, 2016 6:50 AM  

We are the champions, my friends, and we'll keep on fighting till the end

Anonymous damaged justice March 12, 2016 6:54 AM  

Not that you probably care, Vox, but Matt Edwards defecating all over your comments, and those responding to him, have made me stop reading comments here. Too bad, as you tend to have some of the best.

Blogger ghsaturn March 12, 2016 7:02 AM  

And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

While I agree with the notion that queens are in no way better than kings and are probably more warlike (women generally being sheltered from violence therefore not knowing its price), the causal relationship doesn't always have to work like that - could be the other side deciding to go to war. I.e. Maria Theresa's war of succession, where everybody and their dog declared war against her pretty much because she was a woman.

Blogger Aeoli Pera March 12, 2016 7:04 AM  

Escoffier wrote:I would wonder if Queens were more likely to plunge their nations into morass wars where there is no real objective or end point?

I would guess that's more of a male proclivity.

Blogger VD March 12, 2016 7:11 AM  

Not that you probably care, Vox, but Matt Edwards defecating all over your comments, and those responding to him, have made me stop reading comments here.

Considering that you are a) off-topic and b) cross-posting, I can honestly say that I don't care at all.

Political posts in the campaign season are always going to attract lunatics. This is not the first electoral season we've been through. Deal with it.

Blogger Salt March 12, 2016 7:18 AM  

Interesting post. Makes me want to play some Chess.

Anonymous Steveo March 12, 2016 7:46 AM  

See, you read the title of the post here and you know it's not about bruce jenner. On topic, I wonder how a Queen's advisers affected this issue; war might be made to feel like the right thing to do.

Blogger Hammerli280 March 12, 2016 7:51 AM  

@3 StG:

Simon Schama's book on the French Revolution makes much the same argument. That Louis XVI was willing to solve the crisis with a constitutional monarchy, but Marie Antoinette would have no part of it....and Louis wouldn't shut her down.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 12, 2016 7:58 AM  

Or male chickenshits wanting to prove their manliness.

Blogger LP9 Rin Integra S.I.G. March 12, 2016 8:05 AM  

Pure Chess for the consoles offer old school piece people.

Women in power can become, if not always, a danger to their nation and inflict serious long term damage within, to its allies, for reasons that do not abide by the law or tradition. Have not queens acted above the law?

It's like WRE in religion, they do not belong in, we mostly do not belong in positions of leadership within the church or gov't.

Women's suffrage along with multiculti has failed, thanks again baby doomers and the foolish few generations before boomers.

You could not stand up to the women due to your weakness and now your family is destined for hard times.

Then again a nation often suffers under the dysleadership according to their own decline and decadence, its no surprise that Queens caused more bloodshed than religion. (TIA.)

Blogger CM March 12, 2016 8:24 AM  

war might be made to feel like the right thing to do.

I am flitting between a few theories here (with the female disconnect from loss of life as an amplifier). Since it is the married reigning monarchs that started wars, there's:

1) Show of "strength". Women think being able to fight makes a woman strong. VD's favorite fantasy trope is a great example of this. A queen would be more susceptible to wanting to prove she's as good as a man.

2) Advisors manipulating queens by preying on insecurity. Women like security and in the absence of a strong male, are more likely to use violence to secure it if they feel threatened.

3) The same as 2 without the help of advisors.

Also, its kind of annoying to me that these (married) women chose foreign affairs over domestic. Their presentation to the world as THE RULER was vanity on full display. The roles should have been reversed.

Blogger Giuseppe The Kurgan March 12, 2016 8:28 AM  

Thanks for the info. it's always nice to have facts to back up your observations.

Blogger Nate March 12, 2016 8:31 AM  

To be honest I was surprised when you started mentioning the encyclopedia of wars that patterns like this would be showing up in blog posts. I've long had a theory that Queens would be associated with war based on my observations of female cops and female bosses in general.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 12, 2016 8:44 AM  

Thomas Jefferson writes in his memoirs that Marie Antoinette called the shots, oppressed the peasants, and Louis was too much of a bitch to shut her down.

Blogger Joe Keenan March 12, 2016 8:49 AM  

It's interesting that the idea a woman as ruler would be more "motherly" and less likely to war, sounds very sexist. It also ignores some rather blood thirsty rulers like, Queen Victoria, she stood by and watched as millions of Irish starved as food was removed at gun point (200,000 total troops were dedicated to the suppression of Ireland, 100,000 being deployed there at a time). Indira Ghandi turned the worlds largest democracy into a fascist state. Ranavalona reduced the population of Madagascar by 50%. Anyone whose ever seen girls fight knows they don't fight fair.

Anonymous Queen of Hearts March 12, 2016 8:59 AM  

@3 @35 Ye shall not double post.

Off with his head!

Blogger Lovekraft March 12, 2016 9:21 AM  

Women also support expanding bureaucracy and governmental reach. The nanny state is alive and well in Canada and political correctness means they are able to act without criticism (or else you're branded a muhsodginist!).

So they may not actually engage in out and out war in modern times, but their state-backed force is always increasing.

Blogger Bard March 12, 2016 9:50 AM  

Female cops Nate, don't get me started. Served 8 years with them. Their resort to violence was instant
They would freak out and suddenly the male partner (me) would have to diffuse or handle the confrontation. It is if they had no middle speed.

Blogger Cataline Sergius March 12, 2016 10:16 AM  

Interesting.

The examples cited were post treaty of Westphalia.

Before then a queen at war leaned more towards suppressing an enemy population rather than winning concessions from another nation-state. Famous example: Isabella of Spain versus the Moors.

Yes, border provinces got swapped but a lot that had to do with localized population shifts as well.

Bottom line: Before Westphalia, Man would fight the Other-Man. Woman would fight the Other-Geonome, (with a view towards extermination).

Anonymous Takin' a Look March 12, 2016 11:45 AM  

I read the title and first thought that popped in my head was "Oh, Milo and Ben Shapiro having a cat-fight?"

Anonymous Gen Kong March 12, 2016 11:50 AM  

The females born into the role are by no means the only queens who like wars. The reserachers should have factored in the various Repuke dancing monkeys, mandarinas and littlest chickenhawks along with the the pedigreed queens and their results would have been even more lopsided. There are way too many queens at present for there to be any chance of peace, not to mention the Lizard Queen.

Blogger tublecane March 12, 2016 12:03 PM  

People have preconceived the idea that countries run by women go to war less? I don't have that preconception? Who are these people? Have they ever met a woman? Females are less violent than men, yes, but so what? It's not like they're gonna be on the front lines. Queen Whatever sending men into battle is like your girlfriend saying "Aren't you going to do anything?" after a rude guy bumps into her at the bar.

Blogger J Van Stry March 12, 2016 12:52 PM  

Queens have always been more bloodthirsty, because they really don't care about men.

Look at what Queen Elizabeth did to the sailors who defeated the Spanish Armada and saved England: She killed off about half of them, because she didn't want to pay them!
(She confined them to their ships where many starved to death or caught disease and died.)

Anonymous BGKB March 12, 2016 2:17 PM  

I wondered how far back in history QUEENS TRUMP SPADES went.

Aeoli Pera wrote:My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence

Any single mom that pimped out her kid to her boyfriend knows the costs, but knows the costs will not be personally suffered. If women actually had empathy as claimed single moms would apologize for attacking my wallet.

as a quick and dirty rule of thumb anyone who wants the authority to propose wars should have been punched in the face at some point

BigGaySteve's services now offers face punching, free 1/2 hour for Hillary Supporters with your Hookers for HilLIARy receipt.

head was "Oh, Milo and Ben Shapiro having a cat-fight?"

I am reasonably certain that Shapiro is STR8 despite acting like a prima donna and passing as a pretty boy.

Blogger The Other Robot March 12, 2016 3:46 PM  

Inquiring minds wonder if the abdication of Edward VIII was engineered because the successor would be a woman and thus more amenable to a war with Germany?

Blogger RobertT March 12, 2016 5:13 PM  

Hardly a surprise.

Blogger RobertT March 12, 2016 5:13 PM  

Hardly a surprise.

Blogger Earl March 12, 2016 11:49 PM  

One female I mentioned this to (because she was implying that women wouldn't cause as much violence if they were in charge) asked for an example. I said Queen Elizabeth. She said Queen Elizabeth was a product of "the system." I guess that excuses her for having her cousin killed. I guess "the system" means patriarchy.

Blogger borderwalker March 13, 2016 1:52 PM  

@8 Discard: it's a status thing, too. In the US, 'Defense' is a big, worldwide stick that takes up a yuge chunk of the Fed.gov budget.
In Slovenia, 'Defense' is probably a low-status political sinecure, like Transportation or Interior is here. So, why not give it to some juinor coalition hack with two X chromosomes?

Blogger borderwalker March 13, 2016 2:04 PM  

@17: PhilipGeorge2016,

With female secretaries of state the count in body bags is impressive. Queens of politics indeed.

I also noticed this:
Madeleine Albright- 3 daughters
Condoleeza Rice- childless
Hillary Clinton- 1 daughter

Does anyone else think this contributes to their recklessness with the lives of our sons?

Blogger borderwalker March 13, 2016 2:11 PM  

@17: PhilipGeorge2016,

With female secretaries of state the count in body bags is impressive. Queens of politics indeed.

I also noticed this:
Madeleine Albright- 3 daughters
Condoleeza Rice- childless
Hillary Clinton- 1 daughter

Does anyone else think this contributes to their recklessness with the lives of our sons?

Blogger Scott Birch March 13, 2016 6:19 PM  

Female pugnacity, pushing men into battle, can be seen in historical accounts of a female ruler of the Mongols, as well as in the car park of a club at closing time.

Anonymous Discard March 14, 2016 12:18 AM  

50. borderwalker: It's also a deliberate insult to the troops.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts