Who are the greatest female leaders in history?
>>716669
Op Pic related, she removed kebab
Who cares?
Wu "bloody cunnilingus" Zetian
Queen Victoria...Joan of arc...Grace O Mally...Sakachawea?..however u spell that.Alice Paul...thats all off the top of my head.
>>716813
Was Queen Victoria a real leader? I thought the UK was a proper democracy by the 1800s with the Queen just being a figurehead
>>716778
when will this retarded Tukish-made meme die?
The first instagrammer
>>716813
>Queen Victoria...Joan of arc...Grace O Mally...Sakachawea?
All memes. All of them had powerful men behind them.
>>716669
Thatcher
>>716669
>dfw no Palmyrene Empire to usurp Rome
It would have been glorious
>>716669
Queen Jadwiga of Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland
To promote gender ideology she identified herself as "king" and created multicultural power by marrying pagan Lithuanian duke to create army worthy of progressive society in order to bring down fascist Teutonic knights.
>tfw no qt muslim genociding waifu
>>716801
Whoa, what? I've heard about the human pig incident, but not that.
>>716954
She would have visitors and petitioners to the court perform cunnilingus on her, occasionally while she was on her period to show respect.
>>716669
catherine the gr8
>No Tamar the Great
The only time in history when Georgia was relevant coincided with her reign.
>>716998
Jesus. Females as well? ...No wait, this is China we're talking, no such thing as powerful women.
But if the story is true, I doubt anyone would have dared to deny her, considering how brutal she could be. But I'm pretty sceptical about how much truth there is to this bit of information - she's among one of the most vilified people in Chinese history (if not the most); of course people would circulate such foul rumors.
Oh well. On topic, I would nominate Victoria Woodhull and Nzimba of Congo (what's known of her, anyway).
>>716887
>you will never abduct her with your barbary pirate crew and marry her converting her to islam
>>717082
Correction, *Nzinga (of Ndongo and Matamba to be precise).
>>716669
me ;)
>>716830
All women leaders are. It is practically a requirement to have a large penis to rule well. It affects much more than just your sexual confidence. I'm guessing Nixon had a big one, Hitler too.
>>716887
>tfw you'll never fight in her wars of succession or her holy wars
>Great leader
>Female
Pick one.
>>717419
Who is this?
>>717441
Some girl one of these anons is having oneitis over while Chad destroys her birth canal.
![800px-Darnley_stage_3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dHaTk5H.jpg "800px-Darnley_stage_3[1].jpg")
Heard good things about pic related.
>>716813
>Glorified cheerleader
Isabella should be the only answer because she's the only one who had any real power and she also put Ferdinand in his place when he tried to overreach his authority. That and she removed kebab
Some of her other accomplishments
>Restored law and order to Castile after the reign of Enrique IV (the 0/0/0 heir in EU4)
>Put ambitious vassals in their place
>Restored prestige to the Order of Santiago
>Was instrumental in winning her succession war
>Once talked a rebellious city into calming down
>>717441
Michelle Jenner.
She portrayed Queen Isabella in a TV show
>>717467
Thanks lad
>>717465
You know a bitch knows what she's doing when she manages to negotiate her own marriage in medieval times
>>717465
It honestly doesn't work that way. Nobody takes woman leadership seriously, not even her own advisors and military. Look at William Cecil, advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, for example: whenever a conflict arose, his word took precedence.
All women leaders have some man leading things from behind the throne. Like I said here: >>717402 , a large penis is required. It takes a fuck you, I will do it my way, and you remember you are my advisor attitude to be a great leader. If a woman acted that way, her people would just think that bitch is on her period and look to the closest competent man instead. To put it short: no one is going to trust anyone with a vagina to run a country. It takes intelligence, that they don't have, and guts, which they also don't have. The peaceful people's leader is not based in reality.
>>716669
Theodora, who was a better leader than her own husband.
Second only to maybe Elizabeth of Russia, the one who made Prussia shit its pants so hard they threw a parade when she died.
>>716830
I'll agree with you, except on Joan of Arc. Pic Related, her "powerful men" were all pussies who couldn't even gather enough testosterone between them to mount a rescue.
>all of them had powerful men
By that line of reasoning, no man is ever a great leader either. Even Genghis Khan had Subatai.
>>717038
10/10 taste
>>717564
>By that line of reasoning, no man is ever a great leader either. Even Genghis Khan had Subatai.
All great leaders have advisors. There is a difference between prudently listening to advisors, like all intelligent leaders should, and outright being a figurehead while your advisors lead. Geopolitics is about as masculine as it can get. Even games that simulate geopolitics and warfare, like chess, women perform horribly at, and obviously real life is more dynamic and less subject to knowable rules than a board game. All great leaders lead, that doesn't mean they don't listen to intelligent advice.
>>716835
Stay mad Palymrian scum
>>716831
this tbqh lads
>>717564
Hello my English friend
>>717587
>Geopolitics
/gsg/ pls leave.
>>717564
Sometimes you just want to end a war
>>717564
Your pic sounds like a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit.
>>717642
Sources can't be wrong. People can't lie.
>>717648
Well yeah, but shouldn't you then prove they're wrong instead of just saying they are?
Don't they teach you anglos anything in school? ;^)
>>717655
I'd have to get those books. He doesn't prove anything, he just cites them. A good rule of thumb, though, is if it sounds like bullshit, it's probably bullshit. And that sounds like a lot of bullshit.
>>717666
>books
>post literally cites websites
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/joan-of-arc-military-successes-and-failures/
http://www.scottmanning.com/content/joan-of-arc-cannons/
Took me about 10 seconds of Googling to find these essays, both of which provide their own extensive citations. But of course, I'm just doing my part to educate the average /his/torian, I don't expect a perfidious anglo like you to actually go to these cites and carefully consider the arguments made therein.
Nice devil's trips, btw.
>>717680
I've got better things to do than research fairy tales. Nobody here was there, and considering how ubiquitous tall tale war stories are, I don't believe it. Even if I saw a source from a "respected author" I wouldn't believe it. I'm not even going to waste my time, just look at you through the internet with that "you're a gullible fuck" look, because I have a very strange feeling thaf if I was there I wouldn't be seeing any of that shit.
>>717709
>Nobody here was there
If you really think that, why are you on /his/? Or are you just mad that England got BTFO by a fucking teenager and some cannons?
>>717680
>both of which provide their own extensive citations
Those were what I was talking about, by the way. They add no new information in their article, just rehash other books. I'm not going to hunt down those citations when common sense tells me it's bullshit. This more or less tells me which authors to avoid. No doubt there are lots of "a soldier said," "legend has it," and "according to the records" in there. Quit being a lazy bum and read some actual history, with legal documents, treaties, financial documents, etc. All of this woman stronk bullshit is just conjecture, and almost certainly false.
>>717038
Only 100% True answer
>>717735
Next you are going to be posting the Night Witches. Face it, all women fighters are bullshit. It says more about the author's source gathering than it does the event. Historical records can, and are, manipulated to fit an agenda. Sorting through history to gather crucial information is an art, not a science. You need to have a very good eye for inconsistencies and know when something sounds out of place. That doesn't fit my worldview, and if it does yours, that means you probably have a worse bullshit detector than me.
>>717741
>This more or less tells me which authors to avoid.
>"I'm going to avoid these authors who make argument that run counter to what I think happened!!"
That's some great "intellectual honesty" and "commitment to critical thinking" you've got there.
>>717756
Yeah, pretty much. I know my conception of reality is better than theirs or yours. I don't listen to fairy tales. I actually have a brain and a strong grounding in reality. All real world tests today have shown women underperforming men by every margin, and that is with rifles instead of swords. It sounds out of place because it is, and no dubious source is ever going to make me rethink the reality I know I live in.
How many women have you seen do a great athletic feet? I don't mean in the movies or on t.v., I mean with your own eyes. That's how I know it's bullshit.
>>717755
>That doesn't fit my worldview
If you're letting your worldview guide your historical research and treatment thereof, you're pretty much SJW-tier. You're also starting to sound like you've got a horse in this race, and the fact that you're willing to admit that MY sources might be manipulated by an agenda, but have not:
1) provided your own counter-sources AND
2) explained why they are immune to this revisionism and bias you're accusing my sources of
makes me seriously doubt your commitment to any actual historiography, especially given that you seem very committed to this idea of how "history" as a discipline should actually work (a notion common with SJWs and other cultural materialists!).
>>717769
>How many women have you seen do a great athletic feet? I don't mean in the movies or on t.v., I mean with your own eyes. That's how I know it's bullshit.
Like none, which is why if you notice to the first post I made in this thread, I gave the person I was replying to EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE they posted, except Joan of Arc. Women rulers are entirely a meme, for really good historical and biological reasons. But discounting the possibility of a single decent female commander (and by decent, note that I mean "better than her male peers" — daily reminder that Joan of Arc was captured and got her ass executed, and possibly raped), when there's vast amounts of sources that give arguments to the effect of "not bad" (again, notice I'm not saying she's Augustus-tier, I'm saying she was "okay")...
... Is just piss-poor historiography.
>tl;dr
The fact that you dismiss those records out-of-hand and refuse to even address the sources makes you the worst kind of /his/torian, and possibly an anglo cockroach.
>>717775
>If you're letting your worldview guide your historical research and treatment thereof, you're pretty much SJW-tier.
No, it's my grounding. If something doesn't fit my conception of human nature and the strategic realities of a situation, it immediately makes me discard it. If something doesn't look like it belongs in reality, I can only assume it doesn't—after all, I have never seen anything with my own eyes that doesn't look like it belongs in reality.
>makes me seriously doubt your commitment to any actual historiography
I don't have a commitment to it. I use it more or less as a way of learning more about politics and economics. In order for me to do this, the history has to be very, very accurate. The way I achieve this accuracy is by never believing anything fully. Indeed, I start out not believing something at all, that is, until it starts making too much sense. When something sounds like it belongs in reality, sounds like something you could witness with your own senses today, and fits with your understanding of politics and human nature, it is probably what happened. I still hold out some reserve just because I wasn't there and can never 100% know for certain.
>especially given that you seem very committed to this idea of how "history" as a discipline should actually work
I observe politics and people. If history doesn't match my perceptions, I figure the historical sources are wrong. I trust my own sense of reality over any source. If you give your trust away to anyone with a source, they will have you believing in Santa Clause before long.
>>717825
While I do sympathize with your respect for uncertainty, I'm concerned that such an approach can be used to immediately discount anything outside of personal experience, and since we're talking about historiography (which is, by its nature, outside of human experience), I think it's a fundamentally bad approach to take, especially when THERE ARE SOURCES, AND THOSE SOURCES EVENTUALLY MUST CITE SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE.
Of course, you can then dismiss those first-person accounts as propaganda (which is a FAR better argument against Joan of Arc than any pseudo-MRA "hurr durr women" drivel, especially if said drivel is backed by "personal observation", which I'm gonna go ahead and claim is "cute" when applied to the study of historical events and figures).
Only at THAT point, and not at any point beforehand, do we approach anything that can be considered the proper study of history. Your approach is certainly useful, and I do respect uncertainty as well. But in historiography, bullets must be bitten, and since this is /his/, accepting sources outside of one's own experience is one such bullet.
>>717528
Just finished reading about Theodora. She was a badass who had her poor nerdy king wrapped up with her little finger. Book smart + street smart. If only she'd lived, plague didn't strike them, they didn't kill Mohammad's butt buddy, and they didn't waste resources trying to take the west back while leaving the east weak and take up iconoclasm to the enraging of most of their population.
>>717853
Said nerdy king was honestly the most overrated faggot to ever sit in Constantinople. What makes it even better is that the "great" Belisarius was also a nerdy faggot, whose own wife completely dominated him and spent her entire life making sure he didn't get himself utterly rekt.
You could write a seriously epic sitcom based on Theodora and Antonnia, and all the absolutely ridiculous shit they pulled.
>>717528
>being more competnent then the coward justinian 1 is a great feat
lol
>>717881
>Said nerdy king was honestly the most overrated faggot to ever sit in Constantinople.
But muh code and muh Narses and muh Ictinius of Miletus
>>717852
I'm not a historian, I don't have to make those concessions. I study history for my own use. Where were we? Where are we? Where are we going? I don't want an answer tainted with lies, and books that mix truth with lies are worse than books with outright lies, as someone has to winnow the lies out. Technology changes, people and politics probably don't (at least I have no reason to assume they do).
As far as your woman heroine thing, I honestly think we would have seen it already. The fact that in the age of cameras and steroids we don't have one genuine piece of footage is telling. I honestly apply this to intelligence, as well. I have never seen a woman that I can honestly say I got the same impression as an intelligent man from. I know there was probably personal bias in that, but I honestly tried to judge as fairly as I could.
>>717893
>I'm not a historian
We're on /his/, and you seemed to be making some claims about history. You probably don't have a degree, but the mere fact that you're making claims about historical events and people is enough to motivate me to say that either you do have to make those concessions, or your claims are straight irrelevant to historical events and people.
I might as well start posting that all of English history probably didn't happen, since I've never seen a single Englishman amount to anything. Sure, that might be a valid argument, but everyone on /his/ has teh right to laugh me off 4chan entirely, especially if I go around claiming that "I'm not a historian" and "I don't have to make concessions to first-person sources".
>that entire second paragraph
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, or how to respond, except to say that I'm not making any claims about gender whatsoever. The only claim I am making about anything at all regards Joan of Arc, and her individual capabilities as a tactician.
>>717040
Imagine if she'd actually married Charlemagne.
>>717881
>You could write a seriously epic sitcom based on Theodora and Antonnia, and all the absolutely ridiculous shit they pulled.
Normally I hate sitcoms, but I wouldn't miss out on that shit.
>>718121
You make it sound like there is any validity at all to history. You don't have to go back far to see history break down into ideology; take WWII, for example.
History is not a real degree or a real field, get over it. It is an art, not a science. People's perspective and context that they place information into are different, which completely destroys any objectivity. You are getting the author's perceptions, not the events themselves. I don't feel very bad about not having a history degree when I read many "historians," because their perspectives tend to be very childish and don't tend to create a big picture understanding.
That brings me to my last point: sources. You are acting like most sources are in anyway concrete. How many sources in a book are simply citing a book that itself has sources that it cites? How many have a translation barrier that had to be surmounted before it got cited? The farther back you go, the less primary sources we have. Even valuable primary sources, like financial, diplomatic, and legal documents, can be fabricated, although they tend to be much more accurate.
Quit being gullible. I guarantee you most of the things you are learning about didn't happen the way they were purported to. You are getting someone's perspective, not the event. Common sense will take you a lot farther than "good" sources.
>>717053
/thread
Not even joking
>>718952
>My MRA views tell me more than primary sources ever will
Maybe you should take your emotion based thinking back to /pol/ or /r9k/ you Anglo retard.
>>719112
delete this
