In the reign of Francis I. the title of colonel-general was instituted ; and it was first in 1544 conferred on M. de Taix, with the command of all the in fantry of the nation. The title existed however only to the time of Louis XIV., by whom it was abolished.
The English nation has nearly fol lowed the practice of France in matters appertaining to the military service. Thus the lord-high-constable and the lord-marshal of England, in former times, were at the head of the military establishments of the country ; and, when the first office was suppressed by Henry VIII. in 1521, the title of captain-general appears to have been adopted for the commander-in-chief. This title occurs in the list of the army which served at St. Quintin in 1557, of which list a copy is given by Grose from a MS. in the British Museum. From the same list it appears that a lieutenant-general for the whole army was immediately sub ordinate to the former ; and that under the last was a general of horse, a captain general of foot, with his lieutenant, and a serjeant-major (corresponding to a pre sent major-general). But the title of captain-general probably did not long remain in use ; for, in the list of the army raised by Elizabeth in 1588, the highest officer is styled lieutenant-general, the queen herself being probably consi dered as the commander-in-chief. I the army which, in 1620, it was proposed to raise for the recovery of the Palatinate, and in that raised by Charles I. in 1639, the commander is entitled the lord-gene ral; a lieutenant-general appears as the second in command, and the third is de signated as serjeant-major-general. It was probably soon after this time that the last officer was called simply major general ; for we find that in 1656 Crom well appointed twelve officers under that title to have civil and military jurisdic tion over the counties of England. (Cla rendon, b. 15.) It is evident, from the histories of the northern states, that the armies in that part of Europe have always been com manded nearly in the same manner as those of France and England. Sir James Turner, who wrote Ins ' Military Essayes' in 1670, states that in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, the commander in-chief was designated field-marshal, and that he had under him lieutenant generals of the whole army, besides ge nerals and major-generals of horse and foot. With respect to the first title, he
considers it to have been granted, as a more honourable distinction than that of lieutenant-general, only within about fifty years from his time ; and he appears to ascribe the introduction of it to the king of Sweden (Gustavus Adolphus), who, when he invaded Poland, thought fit to gratify some of his generals by de signating them lieutenant-field-marshals. (Pallas Armata, ch. 13.) From that time, both in Germany and Great Britain, such title, omitting the word lieutenant, has been considered the highest in the army.
In France, during the reign of Louis XIV., and perhaps at an earlier time, the naval commander immediately below the rank of vise-admiral was entitled lieutenant-general. A similar designa tion seems to have been early employed in the English service, for in the time of Queen Elizabeth the commander of a squadron was called the general ; and, as late as the time of the Commonwealth, a joint commission of admiral and gene ral was given to Blake and Montague, though the expedition on which the fleet was sent was confined to an object purely naval.
The administration of military affairs in the great nations of Europe becoming highly complicated during the eighteenth century, the commanders-in-chief, even when riot actually on the field of battle, found themselves fully occupied with the higher departments of the service ; and it became indispensable that the number of subordinate generals should be in creased, in order that all the steps which were to be taken for the immediate se curity of the armies, and for the acqui sition of the necessary supplies, might be duly superintended by responsible officers. The division of an army, for the purpose of occupying important positions or of obtaining subsistence, led also to the ap pointment of several distinct commanders, each of whom required his own particu lar staff; and this circumstance, added to the necessity of having a number of officers prepared at once to assume the command of troops when circumstances should require it, will explain why mili tary men holding the rank of general appear now to be so numerous.