As with all historical writing, the first question to ask is about genre: what kind of book is this? What's the intended audience? To what extent does it present specialized research? To what extent is it a broader reflection on existing research?
The second step is to think about argument. Parker develops a central idea through the book, a claim about what changed in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European warfare and about what change meant for other aspects of European life. (That's true of most historical writing beyond the textbook level.) How would you sum up that argument, in two or three sentencs? Think also about Parker's evidence: how does he back up his argument?
Then think about some more specific questions:
1) How important was war in early modern Europe? How many wars were there, and why were they fought? How significant were the issues that they decided? How did contemporaries view war? You don't need to worry about the details of specific wars and treaties, but try to get a sense of the main power struggles; who were the great-power players?
2) The phrase "military revolution" refers to changes over the early modern period in how wars were fought. What were the most important of those changes? Parker argues that the military revolution started with the introduction of gunpowder technology, but that many other changes were involved; what were these? Why should these specific changes constitute a revolution? Think especially about what happened to army sizes, fortifications, and training.
3) Parker argues that the military revolution affected the non-military sides of government, as well as the army. Why and how? How deeply were governments changed by the impact of war? Consider especially such matters as taxation and bureaucratic organization.
4) What was military life like in the early modern period? How large were armies, how well disciplined and trained? What sort of people wound up in them? We saw that cavalry played a big role in medieval warfare—what did the military revolution do to mounted warfare? More generally, what did it mean for the way battles unfolded in the early modern period?
5) Parker wants us to think about contemporary parallels to the changes he describes; we also live in a time of changing military technology. Do contemporary changes in warmaking technology constitute another military revolution? Do these changes have effects similar to what Parker describes?
