Why does a lieutenant general outrank a major general, if a lieutenant is subordinate to a major?

[KarlGauss]

I know this is a silly little question, but it’s bothered me since the day I learned the terms.

Given the relative ranking in the military of lieutenant and major (with major, of course, being superior), why is it that a lieutenant general outranks a major general? Was there a particular reason this counterintuitive (to me) sequence developed?

Thanks!

[jonesj2205]

You share that question with Bob from Berkeley, who asked Cecil:
Here.

[Ravenman]

The 17th century New Model Army had the rank of sergeant-major general, which was shortened somewhere along the line to major general.

[KarlGauss]

@jonesj2205

You share that question with Bob from Berkeley, who asked Cecil:
Here.

Well, I’ll be . . . Thank you!

[septimus]

Cecil’s reply is excellent, I’m sure, but there is a simpler summary:

In Lieutenant General, lieutenant is an adjective modifying general.
In Major General, general is (originally) an adjective modifying major.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@septimus

Cecil’s reply is excellent, I’m sure, but there is a simpler summary:

In Lieutenant General, lieutenant is an adjective modifying general.
In Major General, general is (originally) an adjective modifying major.

Are you sure? It seems to me that in both lieutenant general and sergeant-major general, general was at least originally the adjective. They are the “general” version of the lieutenant and sergeant-major ranks.

[Enterprise]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

Are you sure? It seems to me that in both lieutenant general and sergeant-major general, general was at least originally the adjective. They are the “general” version of the lieutenant and sergeant-major ranks.

Agree with this: “general” was always an adjective modifying the preceding noun (after the French, or possibly Spanish fashion, I suppose). Thus from top to bottom, “captain-general,” “lieutenant-general,” “sergeant-major general” in which general indeed means “of all the individual parts, overall”. This is probably a left over from the time when individual captains recruited and supplied a feudal army with its troops. Since each of these individuals deserved the appelation captain, the officer above them all (and there was usually a fairly flat hierarchy, without the division/corps structure of modern armies) was the general captain, or, indeed, the captain-general. And below him, logically, were the lieutenant-general, and the sergeant-major general.

[Koxinga]

@Enterprise

And below him, logically, were the lieutenant-general, and the sergeant-major general.

Which is not to minimize the latter’s role: the sergeant-major general is very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, and understands equations both the simple and quadratical.

[septimus]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

Are you sure? It seems to me that in both lieutenant general and sergeant-major general, general was at least originally the adjective. They are the “general” version of the lieutenant and sergeant-major ranks.

Sorry if I’m spreading disinformation.

But I’m not sure. This page treats “leiutenant whatever” as a stand-in for whatever.

These were called placeholders, or, in the term derived from the French, lieutenants…
Finally, the command of the whole army was given to an officer who originally was called the general captain, or captain general, … He, too, had to have a lieutenant general to command for him, or at any rate to assist him,

[BMalion]

@Koxinga

Which is not to minimize the latter’s role: the sergeant-major general is very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, and understands equations both the simple and quadratical.

And yet, is an orphan, poor fellow.

[Scuba_Ben]

A lieutenant is a top aide to a captain. Both rely on a sergeant major for the grunt work.

Similarly, a lieutenant general is a top aid to a general. Both rely on a major general for the high-level grunt work.