1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Oksanka [162]
3 years ago
12

Would you consider Roosevelt a strong president or a weak one? How did his leadership abilities compare to those of other presid

ents you have studied?
History
1 answer:
Vlad [161]3 years ago
5 0
President Roosevelt is a strong president. His leadership skills had guide the United States through the Great Depression of the 1930s and most of World War II. The fact that he's the only president to serve more than two consecutive terms in office - managing to secure a fourth term before he died in 1945 is a strong proof that he's far better compared to other Presidents of the US.
You might be interested in
What types of laws and policies could shi huangdi have implemented to unify China ?
Ket [755]

Answer:

how did Shi huangdi's support in legalism help unify china? People are not to behave foolishly, not kill, there are strict laws, strong central and absolute obedience to authority. By all of these strict laws etc Shi Huangdi can make sure everyone is safe, not taking of others property etc.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which was not a challenge faced by america during the start of the wwi?.
maria [59]

Answer:

Explanation:

Major problems at the end of the war included labor strikes and race riots, and a lag in the economy due to farmers' debts. The Red Summer of 1919 saw an increase in violence in more than two dozen cities, as returning veterans (both white and African American) competed for jobs.

4 0
2 years ago
Which of these is not something soldiers were expected to do when they were not fighting or migrating to another location?
seraphim [82]

<em> A.) Improving Roman infrastructures.</em>

<em>When they were moving to another location Roman soldiers did not have to improve on other Roman infrastructures they came upon along the way, because the building of the infrastructures was not organized by the Roman troops, more so they were organized by an architect and the architect's workers.</em>

<em>The reason I also chose A was because the Roman troops traveled in their groups and whenever they were injured it was up to them to man the camp hospitals to heal the wounded. Also recruiting more soldiers along the way was also very helpful to the Roman legion and allowed a much broader amount of soldiers that could be used for taking over land. Not to mention that soldiers (traveling strictly inside their troops) were responsible for feeding themselves (what I'm saying is that the troops were responsible for cooking and feeding each other I just used "themselves" as the word to describe it).</em>

<em>Since Roman soldiers traveled in groups they did not (I'm assuming here I don't know for sure) take women or other people along with them and they only took the amount of soldiers that were assigned by their higher ups. In other words Roman soldiers were really only expected to do as they were ordered to (in modern times any disobedience to what they were ordered to do would have resulted in them having it put on a disaplinary record, but they did not do that sort of thing during Roman times meaning that they punished the soldiers in ways that I don't factually now about). Basically the key importance in the Roman soldier was to carry out the order he received and complete the order quickly and efficiently. However, they did recruit soldiers along the way as they were instructed and that was to help them benefit for taking over land. The commanding officer was the one who told the Roman soldiers what to do when they were traveling (simple tasks, not the task assigned by the current ruler) and the soldiers were expected to complete it. A few of the tasks assigned by the commanding officer could have been to cook, preform healing measures, and recruit more soldiers.</em>

<em>Hope this helps.</em>

<em>-Northstar</em>

5 0
3 years ago
Why do you think the Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point of the civil war in favor of the Union? How did it turn all arou
N76 [4]

Explanation: The Battle of Gettysburg was a turning point in the Civil War in that Lee's failure to take the war into the North showed the limitations of the Confederate cause and made it so that the war would be contained to and thus the damages would be felt exclusively in the South.

8 0
3 years ago
How are you all? How does today look? Just a little bit of positivity for you all. Please respond if you see.
valina [46]

Answer:

1. Gut

2. Nicht so gut

thanks for asking

8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What did Telegraph allow people to do
    9·2 answers
  • In the 1830s, who became the dictator of Mexico?
    6·2 answers
  • While slavery was apart of African cultures how were slaves treated in Africa
    9·1 answer
  • A historian argues that the Roman leader Julius Caesar was assassinated because he was secretly plotting to overthrow the Roman
    6·2 answers
  • Explain what the Articles of Confederation are and what powers Congress has
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following is a violation of the Eighth Amendment?
    13·1 answer
  • What are two types of attacks terrorists often use
    13·1 answer
  • The sinking of the (fill in the Blank) resulted in the deaths of 1,195 people.
    11·2 answers
  • What system emerged (began) in the late 1860's? plantationism or sharecropping
    6·2 answers
  • How did the status of priests affect the daily lives of people in this social class?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!