| |
| ▲ | roughly an hour ago | parent [-] | | Any time you see a female monarch who's in power for half a century, it's worth looking into, because you're gonna see a beautiful story about how to wield power. When you can't rely on being able to physically overpower your opponents directly - when "I'm the biggest guy in the room, so fuck you" isn't in your toolkit - anyone who gets and keeps power does so by some really, really sharp tactics. (and yeah, napoleon, et al, but those are in the same vein - short guy runs the world, probably an interesting story there too.) | | |
| ▲ | hnfong an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | At the level of monarchs, personal physical strength rarely matters regardless of gender anyway. Occasionally it is useful to be able to overpower an adversary in a fight, but that's only either when you risk being assassinated, or you want to assassinate somebody else. Other than those situations, it's just political games all the way. (And like another commenter says, it's usually not "beautiful") | |
| ▲ | techjamie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Napoleon was actually average height for the time period and locality. Claims he was especially short were English propaganda that got accepted and survived to the modern day. He was actually 5'6 (168cm). | | |
| ▲ | xp84 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That’s funny, because the increase in stature for males in the modern day has resulted in 5’6” being “short king” territory today (no pun intended) So it’s simultaneously true that he was “only 5’6”” and false that he was short for his time. |
| |
| ▲ | sherr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Her half-sister's story wasn't so beautiful ... | | |
|
|
