Michael Roberts's Military Revolution

Roberts
Michael Roberts introduced the concept of a military revolution. Roberts’ military revolution occurred between 1560-1660 and was the point he believed that separated medieval society from the modern world. Roberts attributes this “military revolution” to the advancement of tactical reforms, and their consequences.
One of these tactical reforms was the implementation of a new standard of training for soldiers. Roberts argues that unlike in the middle ages, new training represented a shift from medieval individualist warfare (characterized by weapons such as the lance) to non-individualist warfare (characterized by weapons such as the pike).
Another tactical reform highlighted by Roberts is the reformation of army recruitment. He explains

that mercenary forces (which made up nearly all armies prior to this period) become too expensive for smaller states to maintain, leading to experimentation with local militia, which ultimately led to national standing armies. Roberts provides the example of Sweden. Sweden was able to create Europe’s first truly national army with conscripted peasants. The peasants were better troops than mercenaries and significantly cheaper. Although Sweden was unique in being able to rely on local conscripts (other leaders found no viable alternatives to mercenaries), it was one of many states at the time that began to develop standing armies. Standing armies arose from the financial burden of the expensive cycle of disbanding soldiers at the end of the campaigning season and re-enlisting them in the spring. When states began to pay army year round, they could drill in winter, which produced higher skilled armies.
Roberts claims that these standing armies became necessary for imposing an absolutist regime and limiting the power of the aristocracy- both significant political developments of the period.

Roberts proposed that the increase in the scale of war led to an increase in the authority of the state. States made their military monopolies absolute. One symptom of this Roberts provides is that states began supervising the supply of materials necessary to war. Roberts provides the example of the Spanish Netherlands state monopoly on gunpowder. The introduction of standing armies further increased the authority of the state. Monarchs began to take over recruitment, paying and controlling the armies. Roberts sees this as a significant development because once armies were royal, the way was open for them to eventually become national.
Parker
Geoffery Parker wrote The “Military Revolution” 1560-1660- a Myth? to test Roberts’ military revolution theory against new evidence that had arose since it was written. Early in the paper Parker remarks that Roberts’ 1560 starting year for a military revolution was “unfortunate”.
Parker claims that developments described by Roberts in the 1560-1660 period were also present in warfare during the Italian renaissance. Some of these developments being professional standing armies, organization of smaller squad units, and the implementation of uniform

dress.
Parker goes on to explain that even the vocabulary of early modern European warfare used in Northern Europe originated in Renaissance Italy. (INSERT EXAMPLE).
Parker criticizes Roberts’ focus on Adolf Gustov. He claims that Gustov’s counter march was not effective until a more accurate musket that could be loaded quickly was introduced.
Parker saw Trace Italienne as the key influence on the evolution of strategic thinking in the 16th century. He explained that because it could not captured by traditional battery and assault methods (as most medieval castles could), armies were forced to adapt their strategy. The fortifications of Trace Italienne were so impenetrable that even total loss in the field did not mean a town would surrender. General’s adapted their strategy and became reluctant to fight battles in the field due to them being indecisive.
The author concludes by noting that his extended examination of the concept of a military revolution fails to dent Roberts’ basic thesis.