The distinction between working and quasi-honorary officers was much older, of course, than Louvois's reorganization. More over, it extended to the highest ranks. About 1600 the "general' of a European army, except in the Italian republics, was always a king, prince or nobleman. The lieutenant-general, by custom the commander of the cavalry, was also, as a rule, a noble, in virtue of his command of the aristocratic arm. But the com mander of the foot, the "sergeant-major-general" or "major general," was invariably a professional soldier. It was his duty to draw up the army (not merely the foot) for battle, and in other respects to act as chief of staff to the general. In the in fantry regiment, the "sergeant-major" or "major" was second in-command and adjutant combined. Often, if not always, he was promoted from amongst the lieutenants and not the (proprie tary) captains. The lieutenants were the backbone of the army. Seventy years later, on the organization of the first great standing army by Louvois, the "proprietors," as mentioned above, were reduced to a minimum both in numbers and in military impor tance. The word "major" in its various meanings had come, in the French service, to imply staff functions. Thus the sergeant major of infantry became the "adjutant-major." The sergeant major-general, as commander of the foot, had disappeared and given place to numerous lieutenant-generals and "brigadiers," but as chief of the staff he survived ; and in modern times the chief of staff of a French army is known by the title of "the major general." Moreover, a new title had come into prominence, that of "mar shal" or "field-marshal." This marks one of the most important points in the evolution of the military officer, his classification by rank and not by the actual command he holds. In the 16th century an officer was a lieutenant of, not in, a particular regiment, and the higher officers were general, lieutenant-general and major general of a particular army. When their army was disbanded
they had no command and possessed therefore no rank—except of course when, as was usually the case, they were colonels of permanent regiments or governors of fortresses. Thus in the British army it was not until late in the 18th century that general officers received any pay as such. The introduction of a dis tinctively military rank of "marshal" or "field-marshal," which took place in France and the empire in the first years of the i 7th century, meant the establishment of a list of general officers, and the list spread downwards through the various regimental ranks, in proportion as the close proprietary system broke up, until it became the general army list of an army of to-day. At first field-marshals were merely officers of high rank and ex perience, eligible for appointment to the offices of general, lieu tenant-general, etc., in a particular army. On an army being formed, the list of field-marshals was drawn upon, and the neces sary number appointed. Thus an army of Gustavus Adolphus's time often included six or eight field-marshals as subordinate gen eral officers. But soon armies grew larger, more mobile and more flexible and more general officers were needed. Thus fresh grades of general arose. The next rank below that of marshal, in France, was that of lieutenant-general, which had formerly implied the second-in-command of an army, and a little further back in history the king's lieutenant-general or military viceroy. Below the lieutenant-general was the marechal de camp, the heir of the sergeant-major-general. In the imperial service the ranks were field-marshal and lieutenant field-marshal (both of which survived up to the World War) and major-general. A further grade of general officer was created by Louis XIV., that of brigadier, and this completes the process of evolution, for the regimental system had already provided the lower titles. (X.)