I recently finished three books on renaissance warfare and would recommend all of them, to the handful of people that may be interested. They all cover the change in technology, tactics, fortifications, and give an overview of the conflicts, so I will provide some highlights or what differentiates them from the rest.
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics, by Bert S. Hall. If your interest is only in gunpowder weapons, this is the best one. The author focuses on science and technology the most out of these three books and follows the change in gunpowder types. He also looks at studies on round ball ballistics and velocity. One possible issue is that he tries to dig the deepest across multiple fields, which allows more room for error.
The Renaissance At War, by Thomas F. Arnold. If you are interested in the renaissance as a time period, this is the best one. The author looks at how the idea and themes of the renaissance related to the new tools and methods of warfare, such as how princes interested in antiquity used the roman and Greek ideas when creating new pike and shot armies. A fun feature is the frequent addition of tables or standalone sections that cover topics such as the weight of different artillery types, or the cost. While still heavily covered, this book focuses on gunpowder weapons the least.
The Art of Renaissance Warfare: From the Fall of Constantinople to The Thirty Years War, by Stephen Turnbull. If you want to learn about the conflicts or soldier's personal experiences, this is the best one. This book mostly covers the conflicts themselves and goes through a chronology based on the chapter topic, such as looking at different sieges in the chapter on fortifications. A particularly great feature is looking at how renaissance warfare changed over 100 years as told by three French knights: Bayard, Blaise de Monluc, and Francois de la Noue. All three had their careers ended by arquebus shot (2 fatally). Blaise de Monluc was even shot by an arquebus in one arm and and longbow in the other, so is the best possible person to speak to the differences. One issue is that the author takes autobiographical accounts at face value, such as the factually controversial ones of John Smith.
I listed these in the order I read them, which is why the summaries get progressively longer. The first was probably my favorite, followed by the third.
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics, by Bert S. Hall. If your interest is only in gunpowder weapons, this is the best one. The author focuses on science and technology the most out of these three books and follows the change in gunpowder types. He also looks at studies on round ball ballistics and velocity. One possible issue is that he tries to dig the deepest across multiple fields, which allows more room for error.
The Renaissance At War, by Thomas F. Arnold. If you are interested in the renaissance as a time period, this is the best one. The author looks at how the idea and themes of the renaissance related to the new tools and methods of warfare, such as how princes interested in antiquity used the roman and Greek ideas when creating new pike and shot armies. A fun feature is the frequent addition of tables or standalone sections that cover topics such as the weight of different artillery types, or the cost. While still heavily covered, this book focuses on gunpowder weapons the least.
The Art of Renaissance Warfare: From the Fall of Constantinople to The Thirty Years War, by Stephen Turnbull. If you want to learn about the conflicts or soldier's personal experiences, this is the best one. This book mostly covers the conflicts themselves and goes through a chronology based on the chapter topic, such as looking at different sieges in the chapter on fortifications. A particularly great feature is looking at how renaissance warfare changed over 100 years as told by three French knights: Bayard, Blaise de Monluc, and Francois de la Noue. All three had their careers ended by arquebus shot (2 fatally). Blaise de Monluc was even shot by an arquebus in one arm and and longbow in the other, so is the best possible person to speak to the differences. One issue is that the author takes autobiographical accounts at face value, such as the factually controversial ones of John Smith.
I listed these in the order I read them, which is why the summaries get progressively longer. The first was probably my favorite, followed by the third.