In the 1500's religious people were abandoning the the Church in numbers. There were 15-20 independent reformers at the Luther's time and maybe 5 of them are still known names.

You remove Luther from the picture and reform changes pace and takes different route but but it still happens.

> You remove Luther from the picture and reform changes pace and takes different route but but it still happens

Does it ?

If the pace and course of events were changed, perhaps the reformation would happen, albeit under a different name. Perhaps not.

A different leader might not have been so resolute or bold (as to pin the grievances on the cathedral door), might not have had the political support of the Elector of Saxony. Certainly the conditions may have been present, but would individuals of sufficient character have been available to kindle change ? It was fortuitous that Germany had both Luther and Fredrick III (aka 'Fredrick the Wise') alive at the same time. Given a slightly less capable Elector the Church could have prevailed; with slightly more flexible Church hierarchy Martin Luthers fiery challenge could have been contained.

Look at it this way:

Would the outcome WWII be the same if Churchill and Roosevelt were replaced by different men? Remove Mao from the picture and is it obvious that course of modern Chinese history would be the same ?

Progress and change are not inevitable. The ingredients of agent and agency must be present and work together[1]

[1]Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr wrote an essay in 1958 dealing with this issue and entitled The Decline Of Greatness. I am unable to find an adequate link to it. It is a fascinating read.

Also see Sidney Hook The Hero in History https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Hero+in+History&stick=H4...

As Wittgenstien said many philosophical questions are just examining misuse of language.

In a universe with a well defined casual chain in macroscopic world, is asking "might have been if X", even meaningful? Even considering indeterministic effects in quantum level, is "might have been" meaningful? (I don't think so since if the effects are essentially random, making predictions about it is useless)

I think the question "unasks" itself if the language is examined thoroughly. I think its from simple conclusion that free will is meaningless term, so "might have beens" is misapplication of illusion of free will to make statements on history.

> Definitely not provable.

A reformation isn't provable, but Christianity has been schism after schism for it's entire existence, it's certainly probably that something reformation like would happen eventually.

Can we say, "people of character and placement are required to drive history"? Not trying to be the PC police or anything, but your statement is actually made factually incorrect by excluding half of our species.

> Can we say, "people of character and placement are required to drive history"?....

Yes. Thank you

(Although in the past and to this day, the course of history has overwhelmingly been determined by men)

Well, all of those men did have mothers. In my experience it is the mothers who usually determine the character of the boys who become men who have typically been the linchpins of history. Would Alexander have been as great without Olympias?

> Although in the past and to this day, the course of history has overwhelmingly been determined by men

insofar as kings and bishops have been men, then yes. the importance of women in history is much less documented because they have not been the heads of large institutional authorities. that doesn't mean that the women weren't playing an important role, just that it wasn't historicized in the same way.

> insofar as kings and bishops have been men, then yes....

Kings, Bishops,Generals, soldiers, priests,aldersmen,mayors, sherrifs,sailors,captains,spies,explorers,adventurers, financiers,writers, historians,scientists have been overwhelmingly male.