I am writing a text on how the evolution of society and warfare is linked, specifically from the middle ages to the modern period. I intend to cover:
To what extent were there "commoners" (i.e. non-knights) on the medieval battlefield? The common perception seems to be that you would bring levied peasants to supplement your numbers, but that seems rather pointless.
Would it be fair to say that the nobles lost a great deal of their influence after the kings established professional armies, given how they (the nobles) no longer were the armed forces of the middle ages? Could you further tie this into the concept of the national state, as the king's expanded influence meant that the people became his subjects rather than his nobles'?
Given the role of the social classes that arose in the 18^th century, could a case be made that they were responsible for countries expanding their colonies? That, to finance your wars, you needed the raw materials and later trade that these brought with them?
Is it correct to say that the American Civil War was fought in a similar manner to the Napoleonic Wars but with "modern" weapons?
Source criticism is a major criteria, so any recommended material, preferably available online, on the evolution of warfare would be greatly appreciated. One of my primarymain sources is A Short History of War from the Air University.
Frankly, what you are attempting to cover is hopelessly broad for a high school level essay, especially considering how disparate the individual questions are. What exactly does war financing in the 1700s have to do with the professionalization of longbow archers, or the increased use of gunpowder artillery in the late middle ages? How does any of that connect to the Industrial Revolution and its influence on warfare? I would advise you to pick one of these topics and research that more thoroughly rather than attempting to discuss so many different questions.
On top of everything else, the book you plan on using is not a "primary source" by the general understanding of what "primary source" means in historical studies. It's not an original source from the period you are studying. At best, it is a secondary source (or even a tertiary source, given that it does not seem to be based on any primary source evidence). That aside, it simply isn't a very good history book at all. The section on the middle ages alone demonstrates that the authors clearly do not know anything about the subject. Looking at the bibliography, their sole citation for the information repeated there is Charles Oman's The Art of War in the Middle Ages, which was first published in 1898! That is laughably outdated scholarship. These authors, writing in 1992, have ignored practically a century of scholarly research and writing in their discussion of the topic.
To add to what /u/mI13 said, I believe you have a misunderstanding of the politics; war was limited and "scientific" until the French Revolution since the Thirty Years War brought such blood shed that most monarchs wanted to limit blood shed and costs, which is why many of them built forts to limit the amount of war an enemy can bring to their own country. Castles were transformed into forts and siege warfare became a very common thing in the 18th century. Further, "new social classes" didn't exactly have an interest in war since wars became limited and focused on dynastic rivalries rather than gaining anything; I'd argue that they would not want war since it would disrupt trade.
You are doing much too much with this essay and I would recommend scaling it back and talking to your teacher then creating an idea from what you can do.