IT was Francis Fukuyama who, in 1992, announced the End of History. A brilliant economic historian, whom I once had the pleasure to interview in a Soho patisserie for this paper, Fukuyama has doubtless regretted not tempering his prediction or in some way hedging his bets.

Within a decade of that declaration, 9/11 set the wheels spinning on what promises to become a century or more of exceptional chaos and carnage in the middle east, and far beyond.

Everyone can get it wrong, especially those whose closely argued ideas are reduced to soundbites. And so it might yet prove with another of Fukuyama's pronouncements. It is his contention that the developed world has recently become more peaceable thanks to women as heads of state and in positions of political influence.

I've often heard people say there would be less conflict and fewer wars if women were in charge. Usually it's the middle-aged and elderly – mothers, aunts and grandmothers – who make this claim. They have never scaled the heights of a male-dominated industry or profession, yet hope that the women they see in charge are imbued with the same gentle, conciliatory and nurturing personalities as themselves. And there, I would suggest, is the snag.

Nor am I being unduly cynical. A study by the University of Chicago covering 400 years of European history (1480-1913) has shown that not only were queens more inclined to take their country into battle than kings, but also more certain to win.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon announces funding for women leaders scheme 

In Victoria's day, Britain was at war with some part of the empire, or would-be empire, almost every year of her reign. Three hundred years earlier, Elizabeth I set a gold standard for empire building, showing her mettle as she fought off Spanish incursions, despatching her own conquistadors across the globe, and managing to maintain stability in a precariously inflammable period of religious strife as if she were refereeing a game of croquet.

The leader of the Chicago study, Professor Oeindrila Dube, points out that you need only think of Catherine the Great of Russia, or Isabella I of Castile to appreciate that, in previous centuries, royal women were every bit as war-like as men. When circumstances dictated, they didn’t hesitate to shed blood.

Quite how they felt privately, of course, is another matter. Henry VIII's daughter, who earned the title Bloody Mary after condemning almost 300 Protestants and religious dissenters to the pyre, was apparently a warm and affectionate person. What her notorious actions indicate, perhaps, is less a vengeful nature and more the vicious tenor of her times.

Even our own Mary Queen of Scots was no peacenik, riding at the head of her troops on more than one occasion and, far from avoiding conflict, at times seeming actively to court it.

Professor Dube’s analysis of royal authority shows that when a queen was in power, she was even more effective than a man. Since she would often work in partnership with her consort, her subjects were effectively getting two warriors for the price of one. There is, however, a great difference between what was required of female rulers in the reign of Victoria and before, and attitudes in modern times.

In almost every era prior to our own Elizabethan age, to be a woman was seen to be weak. Debate raged across Europe in the 16th century about how worthy and capable females could ever be if placed on a throne. John Knox, enraged at Mary of Guise becoming Regent of Scotland, spoke for many when he declared her appointment “as seemly a sight as to put a saddle upon the back of an unruly cow”.

Given such hostility, it’s entirely possible that it was not the assistance of their husbands that made Boudiccas of high-ranking women, but the need to show that they were every bit as aggressive and dangerous as men. The message needed to be sent that anyone who tried to topple them would live – albeit briefly – to regret it.

Margaret Thatcher thrust us into battle in the Falklands where many other prime ministers might have hesitated. You could see her pugnacity, on this and other inflammatory issues, as the problem with Fukuyama's theory. Women who reach the political pinnacle today have had to fight to get there. These are no ordinary women, these are powerful women. Hilary Clinton’s personality surely proves that point: her pitch for the presidency showed her to be a great deal more hawk than dove.

READ MORE: Project aims to help women stand for election 

Yet Fukuyama – and others – might nevertheless be right in hoping for a less violent future if more women are at the top table. Nobody has done more to show Germany in a pacific and positively humanitarian light than Angela Merkel, even though she knew her policies risked her political standing in some quarters.

To date, the performance of those like Mary Robinson, when she was Irish president, or Helle Thorning-Schmidt when Denmark’s prime minister, or New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, not to mention Scotland's first minister, offers reason to hope. The ability to compromise, to use diplomatic means to defuse conflict, or find a way around an impasse is, while by no means solely a female quality, certainly one at which we are beginning to excel.

Sweeping generalisation though it is, women are undoubtedly less physically combative and martial than men, though potentially nasty nevertheless. It can be seen as early as the school playground that our preferred weaponry is verbal attack and the ability to work stealthily, in ways of which Machiavelli would approve, to undermine the enemy.

I’ve never believed we are nicer than men – my experience has been quite the opposite. Yet in the West at least, attitudes in government and society are changing. It’s now possible to be feminine and command respect. Gender no longer signals deficiency. Increasingly, even, it could be seen as a positive advantage.

Growing numbers of women are rising through the democratic ranks on the strength of their strategic and negotiating skills, rather than their gung-ho, macho credentials. As a new generation is attracted to these roles, seeing that they no longer need to act tough in order to succeed, then things might just improve. Perhaps it is a reasonable assumption after all that, with more female hands at the tiller, nations will become stronger and safer.