This interesting subject can only be treated very cursorily, but it is hoped to present a general view of the developments which have taken place in the organization of armies in the field, since the introduction of firearms.

The method adopted for describing this process of evolution is as follows:

The beginnings of organization, and the earliest organized forces—those of the Reiters and Landsknechts in the fifteenth century—are briefly described.

An account follows of the subsequent development of organization in each Arm of the Service separately, noting especially the armies which stand out as the best organized of their time—namely, the Dutch Army of Maurice of Nassau, and the Swedish of Gustavus Adolphus.

A description is given of the “New Model” Army raised by the Parliament in their struggle with Charles I., which is a typical example of seventeenth-century organization. The New Model is of especial interest to Englishmen, not only from the unmatched quality and unbroken success which make it one of the most remarkable armies in history, but because its organization still survives to a great extent in the British Army of to-day.

After describing the organization of armies during the eighteenth century, the great changes introduced in the wars of the French Revolution are discussed, and it is shown how modern forms of organization have resulted from them.

A chapter is devoted to the development of the Staff, and more especially that of the General Staff, and some remarks are then given on the evolution of the Services of Transport and Supply, and of Medical Organization for War.

Throughout these chapters notice is taken of the period at which our military terms were introduced, and the way in which they obtained their special signification—a subject of some interest in connection with organization. These facts are embodied for reference in a list of military terms, showing their origin and derivation, given in Appendix A.

In this connection it did not seem out of place to make some remarks on the inconsistencies and ambiguities of our present Military Terminology, with the view of pointing out the desirability of reforming it. These remarks are given in Appendix B.