This is a very unpopulat fact. In fact it would go almost everything people assume (due to something called gamma bias - see source below)
Throughout history, queens were more likely to wage war than kings AND more likely to amass more land. An example, study shows between 1480 and 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war.
Many activists believed that if women had political power, they would not pursue war. But how true is this? Do incidences of violent conflict alter when women become leaders, or when their share of parliamentary representation rises? In what sense do women mother wars?
If you ask this question out loud, not a minute will pass before someone says ‘Margaret Thatcher’, the British prime minister who waged a hugely popular war in the Falklands that led to her landslide 1983 election victory. Thatcher is hardly the only woman leader celebrated for her warmongering. Think of Boudicca, the woad-daubed Queen of the Iceni people of eastern England, who led a popular uprising against the Roman invaders; or Lakshmi Bai, Queen of Jhansi and a leader of the 1857-58 Indian Mutiny against the British; or even Emmeline Pankhurst, who led British suffragettes on a militant campaign of hunger strikes, arson and window-smashing, then, in 1914, became a vociferous supporter of Britain’s entry into the Great War.
GAMMA BIAS as psychology theory why this is an unpopular fact and is not something you would think: https://malepsychology.org.uk/2018/12/04/why-are-there-so-many-disagreements-about-gender-issues-its-usually-down-to-gamma-bias/
News paper source for stats https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/
The actual study: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Dube_Harish_Queens_Paper.pdf