Favorite Historical Female

[derspiess]

Is this another Meri trap thread?

Anyway, no contest-- Elizabeth I.

[MadImmortalMan]

Is this another Meri trap thread?

Why? Because most of the answers have been women who acted in traditionally (for their time) male roles?   

WHY CAN"T YOU ADMIRE FEMININITY SPICY?????

[merithyn]

Is this another Meri trap thread?

Okay, this is really, really sad, but I realized over the weekend that I really don't know very many female historical figures. I mean, I know the obvious - Elizabeth I, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marie Curie, Boudicca, American Suffragettes - but I just don't know many beyond the most known. I knew that you guys would know a lot more, and that I would learn something by starting a thread like this. I was right. Of Jacob's list, I knew one of them - yes, just one. That's pathetic.

Why? Because most of the answers have been women who acted in traditionally (for their time) male roles?   

WHY CAN"T YOU ADMIRE FEMININITY SPICY?????

But that actually isn't true. The Roman chicks who used sex to get what they wanted, well, that's what they had, it worked, and it's very much a female thing as men didn't have to do it. I find it incredibly interesting to see how women, in such a male-dominated society, still managed to carve a good bit of power out for themselves. Does it fit with today's idea of "feminine power"? Of course not, but it's not meant to. It was a different time with very different ideas of humanity, much less male and female roles in society.

All of that is just fascinating to me. Not just for women; men had to do a lot of stuff too in order to maintain/get/sustain power. The difference is that my education on men is far more expansive than it is on women.

[Neil]

Hard to say.  Probably Victoria.

Now that's interesting. Why?

Because she reigned effectively without renouncing her womanhood the way Elizabeth I did.  Because her reign was (excepting only perhaps that of her son) the high point of human civilization on Earth.  Because she was wise enough to use the system that had been built up for her, and to do what was required of her.

[merithyn]

Because she reigned effectively without renouncing her womanhood the way Elizabeth I did.  Because her reign was (excepting only perhaps that of her son) the high point of human civilization on Earth.  Because she was wise enough to use the system that had been built up for her, and to do what was required of her.

Seems a bit unfair to compare Victoria with Elizabeth I since they had very different roles as monarchs. One was a figurehead, the other the supreme ruler.

I agree with the rest of your statement up to a point, but that point ends with the idea that it was due to Victoria that the "high point of human civilization" was due to her. She did, indeed, influence a number of things, but she didn't create the environment nor did she really directly affect anything during her reign.

Don't get me wrong. I adore Victoria. I just have a hard time equating her to rulers who actually ruled.

[HVC]

Rome's most infamous cheating whore, wife of Roman Emperor Cl-cl-cl-cl-cl-claudius.

Well, if we are going down that road - my favorite is the Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian the Great.

Anyone remember what she used to complain about, according to Procopius? 

[spoiler] That she had only three orifices suitable for fucking at the same time ... [/spoiler]

shes a keeper

As to the question, Joan of Arc. Gotta love a crazy person saving a country.

[Valmy]

The Roman chicks who used sex to get what they wanted, well, that's what they had, it worked, and it's very much a female thing as men didn't have to do it.

Now wait a second.  Who exactly are you thinking of here?  Roman women (at least those of birth, talent, and luck) could achieve quite a bit without having to sex people up.  Heck that was more commonly a good way to be executed, like Messilina, rather than get something.

[Valmy]

As to the question, Joan of Arc. Gotta love a crazy person saving a country.

She is, without a doubt, the most unusual figure in history in my eyes.  I love the cynical Euros who would argue somehow it was some sort of political ploy...because giving a completely unqualified peasant girl real power leading an army and have it work is the oldest political trick in the book.  Nothing quite like it had ever happened before or since.

I mean I could get using some wacko as a figure head but actually giving her leadership?  And have this actually turn out to be have been a good idea?

[merithyn]

Now wait a second.  Who exactly are you thinking of here?  Roman women (at least those of birth, talent, and luck) could achieve quite a bit without having to sex people up.  Heck that was more commonly a good way to be executed, like Messilina, rather than get something.

The impression that I've gotten from reading about a number of those high-ranking Roman women was that they usually started an affair (or several) that ended with them trying to convince their paramour to kill their spouse/ruler/enemy. This generally had one of two consequences: they succeeded and won fame and fortune or they failed and died.

[merithyn]

As to the question, Joan of Arc. Gotta love a crazy person saving a country.

I'm thinking that that's an amazing way to turn schizophrenia into a career.

[Martinus]

That's a really tough question, especially when you move to premodern era. For example how many of these who say Eleanor of Aquitaine really mean Mrs. Hepburn.

[Valmy]

I'm thinking that that's an amazing way to turn schizophrenia into a career.

Well typically French rulers did not just give control of her army to any old nutter, and armies do not usually develop extreme devotion to obvious screw balls.  She had something going for her, clearly an exceptional person.

[Valmy]

The impression that I've gotten from reading about a number of those high-ranking Roman women was that they usually started an affair (or several) that ended with them trying to convince their paramour to kill their spouse/ruler/enemy. This generally had one of two consequences: they succeeded and won fame and fortune or they failed and died.

Well sure there were lots of high-ranking women but plenty of them achieved distinction and importance without having to get anybody killed.

Which famous roman woman successfully executed this plot and achieved fame and fortune?

I mean divorce was legal, Livia did not have to get Octavian to kill her husband.

[crazy canuck]

More seriously though - my number 1 choice would probably be Hatshepsut - widely considered one of the greatest pharohes in history, her reign saw a long era of peace and prosperity in which Egypt reached its absolute peak in terms of wealth, civilization, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut

Good Choice.

That choice being taken I will throw in Catherine the Great. 

[Jacob]

That's a really tough question, especially when you move to premodern era. For example how many of these who say Eleanor of Aquitaine really mean Mrs. Hepburn.

Not me, since I haven't seen the movie... I assume there's a movie involved. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with being influenced by popular media in making that decision - in fact that's pretty much the only way we can form an opinion about a "favourite".