This is a long argument by scholars, you should consider reading the works of Michael Roberts, Geoffrey Parker, Jan Glete, et al. That body of work is called the Military Revolution of the 16th-17th centuries.

You missed one aspect though, which is how state actors, and their bureaucracy, evolved to either leverage the new means of waging war or the requirements borne by their rise.

• Roberts argued that advances in the use of firearms led to the decline of elite knights and the rise of the pike&shot army, with emphasis more and more on shot. This allowed for a strong army to be raised from peasants, which led to a substantial increase in the size of armies in the 16th-17th centuries, the so-called early modern era.

• Parker argues that it is the new-style trace italienne that turned warfare of that era into one of systematic sieges fought using sappers and cannons; this led to a significant increase in costs of fighting war.

• Glete focuses on the fiscal-military state, which introduces emphasis on how the state, at all levels, evolved to enable the new style of war. This included the eventual rise of fiscal institution, the re-casting of relationship between nobles and royals, and so on and so forth.

That's a very, very short summary of what is a large subject. I am not well-read in matters related to the last 150 years, so I can't answer to them directly. But we early-modernists view what happened in that time period as following the trajectory set in the early-modern era ;-).