Recently in the UK there has been the case of David and Ed Miliband competing to be leader of the Labour Party, which many see as an act of treachery on Ed's part.

It seems like something that must have happened before, but I can't think of any cases. Obviously competing against family members is kind of the natural state within hereditary systems, but I was wondering about elected posts, historically (especially in the UK, I guess, though wider examples are welcome).

During the civil war, were there any battles that took place within a city? Were soldiers trained in specific ways in which to fight when not in an open space that would allow for large unit maneuvers, or were urban environments avoided because of their being non-conducive to the prevailing infantry tactics of the time?

Hi, I'm fairly unfamiliar with the history of Rome as a whole (from Republic to Empire to the "fall" of the Western side in 476). I'm hoping someone here can recommend some good survey/comprehensive books on this particular era of history. Thanks!

I've heard the debate moved from his family being questionably catholic, to doubtlessly catholic, to himself now being questionably catholic. What drives the current academic discussion on this?

Practically all of what I have learned about the French Revolution focuses on Paris, with brief mentions of the cities that rebelled against the rebellion. But the vast majority of French were poor farmers who lived far from cities. How were they affected?

Why haven't we gone back?

Sorry if this is the wrong subreddit for this. I know the rules are strict here but I figured it's worth a shot.

As far as I recall Germany got the Sudetenland with the begrudging allowance of the world. Next up was Poland which the UK (and maybe France?) had made a promise to protect. Then after Poland was taken on the German side within a month there were a few months of unease and then the global portion of the war began (not including the Winter War, Japan in China and maybe Korea by then, and Italy in Ethiopia). I assume that Germany expected it was likely that Britain and France might engage them in war, but I'm curious if there was a written out or spoken plan to take more territory after Poland, especially if France and Britain didn't retaliate.

From my knowledge years ago in highschool, I was told the basic hierarchy of medieval society:

• The king + queen

• The nobles + holy church men

• The Knights

• A shit load of peasants

I was told that nobles kept quarreling with the king to get more power, but it wasn't until the knights wanted more power that the peasants realized the whole system sucked, and overthrew it. How true is this/what's different?

This is a question that was asked to me by one of my friends ... and it left me just as confused as she for the exact reason.

Why was Hamilton proposing a new Constitution that would conform to the true principles of Republican Government?

We were both under the impression that the first draft of the Constitution proposed to conform to a federalist government, not to the principles of a Republican government. Could someone shed some light on this? Are we reading the question wrong?

Dear /r/AskHistorians,

I'm currently in the process of writing an essay that will focus on how racism was created in the early middle colonies, and the role that slavery then played in the formation of the Revolutionary War. I wanted to focus on how prior to about 1670, African Americans were treated fairly equally by other white landowners, an example being Anthony Johnson and his court case v. his neighbor over a runaway indentured servant. So I essentially have a few key questions that can be answered briefly:

1. Are there any other examples such as Johnson's where a black man/woman was treated equally?

2. As Anthony Parent argues in his book "Foul Means" there was a key group of white plantation land owners that, post Bacon's rebellion, created the race division over the class division. Essentially, as long as you were white (no matter how poor) you were still better than any black man. Was this accurate?

3. How pivotal was slavery in the formation of the Revolutionary War? It is my understanding that during this time period (mid 1700s) the British were banning slavery throughout their empire, and America was becoming resistant. Was slavery a major cause or more an accessory cause?

Any thoughts that could help me tie all this together would be greatly appreciated. I'm currently flying across the country so I've got time to talk as well. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide!

Could somebody explain the difference between the following terms: "History", "History of the world", "World history", "History of humanity"?

I was browsing through some wikipedia articles about history, and somehow I fail to see how these terms are not all synonymous. Except maybe "History", which I guess relates to an academic discipline, and generally is an umbrella term, right?

This question may be a little broad in regards to timeline, for that I appologise; history isn't my strongest area of knowledge.

With leather armour being used frequently throughout the middle ages, I would assume that it must have offered a decent amount of protection for the cost of production. Obviously with the increase in technological advances, the production of leather (in motorcycle jackets for example) for protection has increased, as has the ease of use. Putting aside the stitching and zippers for a moment, would a leather motorcycle jacket of our time offer better protection than leather armour produced in the middle ages?

tl;dr, If I were to go back in time wearing a leather motorcycle jacket, would it provide better protection than the leather armour of that time period (middle ages)?

Is strange since they rose in a land were Arabic and Greek were Lingua Franca. It would be logical that they adopted the Greek or the Arabic alphabet.

I understand that not many of these personal documents have probably survived. It's just that as I'm tracing descendents through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries all of the sources I find referenced are official documents, and so many of the people connected to the family tree have only a date of death. When there is no other information on a specific individual, do genealogists refuse to use personal documents or are there so few surviving that I have found no reference to them?

I've been listening to the History of Rome Podcast and just listened to the one on Caesar's assassination and his willing of all of his property to Octavian. What kind of property would these wealthiest of Romans have owned?

I'm asking because european monarchies felt very threatened by the French revolution to the point of starting the coalition wars, I wanted to know if there was a similiar effect in kingdoms close to china.