We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Archaeology
SCHX 80.63+0.7%4:00 PM EDT

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: isopatch who wrote (6229)11/25/2019 11:07:06 PM
From: Stan1 Recommendation

Recommended By

  Read Replies (1) of 6398
One factor I'd like to see explored is what objectives did women monarchs have in mind when they started wars.

Particularly, were they more likely to start them because of maternal instincts, that is, in order to pre-emptively fend off threats to national security? It's not the male, but the "mother" bear who is known for ferocity.

Whereas expansionist lust seems to be a male trait. Caesars, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Attila, Napoleon. If queen-started wars could generally be categorized as protective, it would blunt the surprise the article creates about them.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext