I'm currently reading through MacCulloch's Reformation and I am about ~160 pages in, but I had a question. It seems like Luther was mostly just against the Pope and indulgences (at first), but then got excommunicated and called a heretic so he thought, "Screw it" and went all out.

So, why not just advocate for a reunion of Orthodox/Catholicism? Or convert to Orthodoxy?

(I know the evangelical theological positions of the Reformation don't match Orthodox theology, but it seems like that theology grew and progressed over time)

I've visited the Gettysburg battlefield and also seen that superlong movie Gettysburg, but I still can't understand why. Most historians seem to agree that Lee was an amazing general, so why did he make such a big blunder at Gettysburg? What inspired his confidence on the third day to make such a daring (and in retrospect, horrible) decision? If I'm not mistaken, the Confederates were not in a favorable position on the second day. The Union had the high ground, and the Confederates were repelled from Little Round Top on the second day. How would a frontal assault, walking uphill across an open field with Union cannons firing from ahead and the sides, have worked? Could it have worked for the Confederates differently at Gettysburg? Thanks in advance! I've wondered about Pickett's Charge for years.

So it's been a while since I've been in a history class, but I remember freshman year history we learned about idolatry and ever since then I was curious about the creators of the worshipped objects. Were they usually long dead before their objects were worshipped, were they seen as just like vessels for their work to go through? I've really got no idea. Any insight or links would be greatly appreciated.

The movies make it seem like everyone in the Middle Ages (I realize this is a very wide timeframe) always walked around with a sword in case they needed to fight. Is there any degree of accuracy to this? Wouldn't it be more practical to carry around some type of dagger?

What are the main tools, sources used to decide upon the numbers we see printed in the works?

Why do the estimations range from a matter of thousands to hundreds of thousands people meeting on the field of battle, depending on the historian?

What are the main things we lack to make more precise guesses?

Is it a common occurrence for the medieval annalists to lie about the enemy numbers, either bloating enemy size to make the battle appear more successful, or explain the defeat? This seems like a popular reasoning, but how much of a basis in truth is there?

How big of a deal were militant groups like the Black Panther party (as well as others) during the 60's? Did they ever pose a legitimate threat to the U.S.? Also, how wide spread was this sort of militant/aggressive (as opposed to nonviolent) activism amongst civil rights groups/activists?

Did they know the earth was round and did they ever explore in that direction?

With regards to Kennan's recommendations on how best to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War, why did he feel that support Western Left-Wing (but not Communist affiliated groups) and labor unions would hurt the Soviet's influence? Wasn't there a concern that by supporting/funding these groups, they Soviets would see potential targets emerge that they could infiltrate? Did Kennan ever mention in his further analysis why he believed these traditional left-wing organizations were so incompatible with the Soviet mentality to claim that:

"Among negative elements of bourgeois-capitalist society, most dangerous of all are those whom Lenin called false friends of the people, namely moderate-socialist or social-democratic leaders (in other words, non-Communist left-wing)." (Kennan, Long Telegram).

In world War 2,the allies were closing in on Germany from both sides, and Hitler had committed suicide. If I remember correctly, at the time of the armistice, the fighting was not really closing in on Germany yet.

Thanks

I was wondering how accurate the system of 7 electors and a single emperor was to how the actual Holy Roman Empire functioned at the time.

This may be a complex question, but when did the infantry practice of lining up in firing lines/columns in the open end? I know it was still being used in the American Civil War, but at what point did technology force the tactic to be retired?

Much of China's claims on the South China Sea (as well as other areas) seem to be based on certain ancient "documents", Ive heard about how dubious they are or about how pseudo historical context is used to push geopolitical goals, but I wanted to know from experts, is there any truth to the claims? If so on what basis can a sovereign nation claim certain territory based on something hundreds of years ago.

I remember in high school world history class reading a poem about Mansa Musa's father Abubakr II. the poem said that his father set sail West with a very big fleet of ships and never returned to Mali. My world history teacher tried to imply that they could've reached the American continent because apparently there was some evidence in the records of the Europeans when they stepped foot on the American continent after the 1492. What do historians say about the Kingdom of Mali reaching the Americans via transatlantic sailing?

If the Jews were such a hated minority, then why did European governments give them the ability to essentially monopolize all of business in the Western world?