Ever since I've learned about him in 8th grade, all my American history teachers stressed that he's a great president due to how much he expanded executive power. I asked my APUSH teacher about earlier this year and he said with confidence that Andrew Jackson was one of the top 10 presidents (he checks the CSpan rankings every year so I was sure he knew what he was talking about). Today I checked the CSpan rankings for presidents because I was curious where Obama was placed, and I found Andrew Jackson all the way down at 18th place. Have all my teachers been full of hot air? Is there a reason that he's so low this year?

[deleted]

During conflicts such as WWII and the Vietnam War when nations, especially the United States, instituted a military draft, how did they determine who would be drafted and who wouldn't be? Were there medical background checks to determine if someone was physically fit before they received that fateful letter in the mail, or did a 130-pound out-of-shape college student studying biology have just as much chance of being drafted into the military as a physically-fit 6'3 person of the same age?

When I look back at music from the 50's, 60's, and 70's most if not all songs are from an artist or band and only that artist or band. But now its common for an album to have a few features on them.

When did artists start using features and how did it become the mainstream thing to do?

Not trying to spark a religious debate. Did Tiberius have any thoughts or say anything about Jesus of Nazareth? Or was he just looked upon as an ordinary social disturbance not worthy of the emperors time ?

Or maybe if that's too broad of a question, let's limit it to China and Korea since both were defeated and occupied by imperial Japan, but have quickly grown and modernized in the past 30 years or so.

What prevented them from modernizing and becoming a major power in the late 19th/early 20th century like Japan did?

Hello!

I've been doing some research for a project management course I'm taking, and we are re-planning Columbus's voyage. I'm having some trouble figuring out a time estimate (weeks, months etc.) that it would take for a ship to make routine repairs after a voyage of 2 weeks, 4 months etc. Failing that, how long it would take such ships, which I've figured out were built caravel-style (If thats accurate), to be built. Since we can assume repairs take less than that at least. The ships we are looking at are two Carracks and a schooner, all with crews of 40-50. We have assumed the ships to all be less than 120 ft in length and the normal width we found of 20 - 30 ft. The sizes are not specified in the project description, bu the crew sizes are given as above, a few comparative google searches came up with the length and width.

I can clarify any part of the question or details as needed!

[deleted]

A classmate of mine firmly stated that he did a miniature planning of it (which I believe) and that he had hundreds of assistants helping him (which I also believe), but did not physically paint the ceiling himself at all. He was apparently "too prestigious to do so." My knowledge was that he did paint it alongside with his assistants. I also heard that the whole "laying down painting the ceiling" was a myth and he was painting it standing up.

So...did he?

I often hear on online forums that it took like 15 shermans to kill 1 tiger or panther, or the Elefant had a kill ratio of 11 to 1 because it broke down or infantry took it out because of the lack of a machine gun. These figures seen a bit exaggerated to me because of the "legends" surrounding WWII German tanks and I just want some reliable and accurate sources.

The title may be confusing so I'll try to clear it up. I know there were two seperate fronts basically in WW2. You had the European/African front and then you had the Island/Jungle front. Were soldiers trained differently depending on which enemy force they were going to engage or was it simply adapt as you go. I also wanted to know if they just took all the survivors from Europe to go assist the Pacific forces once Germany surrended. I can't find much online about this.

Is there a type of ship from the first half of the eighteenth century that could be sailed with a crew of a minimum of around 30-50? After doing some research all I've found were ships with crews of about 10 or less (schooners) or at least one hundred (ships of the line). Was there anything in between?

After some light reading around 30-50 BCE I was noticing a trend of violence erupting in the streets, either due to old feuds, political reasons or classic gang violence. Was this a staple of Roman tradition? Thanks!

Joseph and Benjamin are both popular names in at least the US, and Reuben and Dan either were once relatively popular or a similar biblical name (Daniel) is. But why aren't there a bunch of Simeons or Ashers or Zebuluns or Issachars or Gads running around today?

My best guess is related to frequency of mentions/significance - Joseph being Joseph, Reuben the eldest son of Jacob, and Benjamin the youngest/accused by Joseph. Is that the entire reason?

UK politician Ken Livingstone (Labour Party) has received a further years suspension from his political party for comments made defending colleague Naz Shah. His comments were regarded as contraverial by the public and media. Were his comments an accurate account of history:

“Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

“The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians.

“As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything anti-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as anti-Semitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this.”

I've been bingeing on antebellum history books lately, but I can't find any popular history books that cover the period after the Mexican War and before Lincoln's election. This would cover the presidencies of Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan. Any suggestions?

I have been curious about the evolution of the collected history of rome. I'm familiar with Livy but not many of his contemporaries, or those who came after him. For the history that's inaccurate, how do we know it's inaccurate? For the history that's accurate, same question.

In essence, what I'm wondering is the history of the history of Rome.

It is more question then one I guess, but I will try to keep it as short as possible. So, I know, that Colleen Mccullough writes fiction, and not history, but it always made sense to me, that in her book Livius Drusus had to be assassinated because he was on the verge of passing a law about the enfranchisement of the Italians, regardless from the fact that his previous laws had all been repealed. But wikipedia tells me he was politically done for after his laws had been abrogated. So why did he have to die then?

Wikipedia also tells me that the enfranchisement of Italians was also just "a last ditch attempt to save his overall legislative programme". However for me it seems kinda counter-intuitive that after he already gained popularity among the plebs with his land-redistribution and grain price reduction laws, he would risk this support with such a controversial and surely unpopular law out of pure opportunism. It would make me more sense politically to build up his image among the plebs with his popularist laws, and then use the popularity he gained for passing this unpopular law. Or am I completely wrong about this?

EDIT: Also, I am interested in Livius Drusus as a historical figure in general, so anything you can tell me about him is welcome, I just thought these are the most important questions, if we are looking at his career.