The Military Staff: Its History and Development

© Barakaldo Books 2020, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

THE MILITARY STAFF

Its History and Development

J. D. HITTLE

Brigadier General

United States Marine Corps (Ret)

Table of Contents

Contents

Table of Contents 4

Dedicated 5

Acknowledgments 6

Author’s Preface 8

Chapter One — From the Nile to Lützen 11

STAFF BEGINNINGS 11

FIELD STAFF IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY 15

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 18

EARLIEST STAFFS 20

USE OF STAFF BY JULIUS CAESAR 27

MILITARY STAFFS IN THE MIDDLE ACES 29

INFLUENCE OF GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS 32

Chapter Two — "Generalstab" 42

GERMAN STAFF DEVELOPMENT 42

THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL 43

STAFF DEVELOPMENT UNDER FREDERICK 45

GROWING AUTHORITY OF QUARTERMASTER GENERAL 48

JENA DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR REFORM 50

DUAL COMMAND SYSTEM OF SCHARNHORST 51

BEGINNING OF THE GREAT GERMAN GENERAL STAFF 52

DEVELOPMENT OF FIELD STAFFS 54

MOLTKE AND THE PRUSSIAN STAFF SYSTEM 55

THE GENERAL STAFF IN WORLD WARS I AND II 61

WEST GERMAN STAFF ORGANIZATION 63

Chapter Three — "État Major" 66

STAFF DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHARLES VII AND RICHELIEU 66

INFLUENCE OF DE LOUVOIS 68

INFLUENCE OF DE BOURCET 68

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 70

BERTHIER, NAPOLEON’S CHIEF OF STAFF 71

THIÉBAULT’S STAFF MANUAL 73

NAPOLEON’S USE OF HIS STAFF 77

BERTHIER’S STATUS UNDER NAPOLEON 81

JOMINI DEPARTS 82

STAFF DEVELOPMENT UNDER NAPOLEON 83

SAINT-CYR ESTABLISHES CORPS D’ÉTAT MAJOR 84

STAFF RETROGRESSION IS FOLLOWED BY DEFEAT BY PRUSSIANS 86

STAFF DEVELOPMENT FROM 1870 TO PRESENT 87

Chapter Four — The New Model (British) and After 93

CONTINENTAL INFLUENCES 93

CROMWELL’S NEW MODEL ARMY 93

INFLUENCE OF MARLBOROUGH 96

BRITISH DISORGANIZATION 99

PROGRESS UNDER WELLINGTON 100

BRITISH STAFF KNOWLEDGE RETROGRESSES 106

WILKINSON’S BRAIN OF AN ARMY 109

REFORMS IN STAFF ORGANIZATION 110

THE 1912 STAFF MANUAL 112

THE CHIEFS OF STAFF ORGANIZATION 116

Chapter Five — The United States Army Staff 119

WASHINGTON’S NEED FOR A STAFF 119

FAULTY STAFF CONCEPTS 122

VON STEUBEN PROVES TO BE AN ABLE STAFF OFFICER 123

WASHINGTON RECOGNIZED THE VALUE OF A TRAINED STAFF 127

LITTLE PROGRESS IN STAFF DEVELOPMENT 130

DEFICIENCIES IN STAFF SYSTEM IN CIVIL WAR 132

U.S. STAFF SYSTEM LAGS FAR BEHIND 136

A PERFECT STAFF SYSTEM—UNTIL WAR CAME! 137

INFLUENCE OF ELIHU ROOT 138

ROOT SUCCEEDS IN GETTING A GENERAL STAFF 140

ACT OF 1903 A BASIS FOR PROGRESS 143

AUTHORITY OF CHIEF OF STAFF UPHELD 145

THE AEF STAFF 146

CHANGES IN THE GENERAL STAFF 149

Chapter Six — Generalny SHTAВ 154

PETER PATTERNED RUSSIAN GENERAL STAFF AFTER SWEDISH AND GERMAN 154

PRUSSIAN INFLUENCE OF BAUR 156

INFLUENCE OF SUVOROV 158

MILITARY DEVELOPMENT UNDER ALEXANDER 162

MURAVIEV’S CONTRIBUTION TO STAFF EDUCATION 162

CLAUSEWITZ AND JOMINI IN RUSSIAN ARMY 164

DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL STAFF 166

SCHOOLING STAFF OFFICERS 168

NINETEENTH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT 169

THE FIELD FORCES STAFF 174

LATE 19TH CENTURY STAFF EDUCATION 177

THE TEST OF WAR 178

RED ARMY STAFF 181

RED ARMY STAFF DEVELOPMENT 188

COMMUNIST PARTY INFLUENCE AND SOVIET DOCTRINE 192

Organization of the Armed Forces 192

RED ARMY GENERAL STAFF COMPARED WITH IMPERIAL STAFF 197

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RED ARMY STAFF AND U.S. STAFF 200

SUMMARY 201

Chapter 7 — Conclusion 202

U.S. STAFF EVOLVED FROM EUROPEAN SYSTEMS 202

MOST PROGRESS SINCE WW I 202

CIVILIAN-MILITARY STAFF RELATIONSHIPS 204

MILITARY EDUCATION OF U.S. OFFICERS 206

Bibliography 208

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 225

Dedicated

To the instructors in our many service schools who are continually furthering the education of the nation’s military mind. Their contribution is indispensable to our Armed Forces, for without it ultimate victory would be impossible.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to General John L. DeWitt, USA, Ret., for his considerate encouragement and advice. General DeWitt, when commandant of the Army and Navy Staff College, took tone to read the manuscript of the first edition and offered valuable constructive criticism. The late Brigadier General John MacA. Palmer, USA, Ret, was extremely helpful in freely giving his advice and consultation, particularly in regard to U.S. staff history. The late Brigadier General Oliver L. Spaulding, USA, and Colonel John W. Wright, USA, while associated with the Historical Section, Army War College, aided me materially through their authoritative counsel and suggestions as to sources of information.

Captain Henri Barbeau, French Marines, extended valuable help in the translation of French military articles. The late Douglas S. Freeman, recognized authority on the Confederate Army, aided in matters pertaining to the Confederate staffs. The late Colonel Adelno Gibson, USA, librarian of the Army War College, and his staff, rendered indispensable assistance by compiling bibliographical lists and furnishing immediate service in mailing such research material as I requested. I also appreciate the help of numerous of my colleagues in the Marine Corps Schools for their valuable criticism. Richard Gordon McCloskey rendered helpful technical and literary advice.

With respect to the recently added chapter on Russian staff history, I am indebted, among others, to the following: Dr. D. Fedetoff White, who generously provided research suggestions and historical information; Col. A.M. Nickolaieff, Russian Imperial General Staff, who furnished valuable data on the staff prior to the Revolution; Professor Cyril E. Black, Princeton University, who assisted greatly in searching for sources of information; and the Rev. J. T. Dorosh, Slavonic Section, library of Congress, who provided valuable assistance by translating Russian encyclopedia articles.

Major-General John B. Deane, USA, Ret., former U.S. Military Attaché to Russia, was extremely helpful by providing information regarding the Red Army General Staff during the late war, and I have received valuable suggestions from Dr. Dallas D. Irvine, National Archives. Also, indispensable assistance has been given by Dr. V. Gsovski, Foreign Law Section of the Library of Congress, who aided both in research and translating.

Without the help of these and many others who have likewise demonstrated an interest in the subject, and who have aided me in varying degrees, the completion of this book would have been an insurmountable task.

The first edition of The Military Staff contained, as a frontispiece, a copy of a letter from the commandant of the Army and Navy Staff College, Lieutenant-General John L. DeWitt. As a result of the addition of the new Russian chapter, General DeWitt’s comments are not wholly applicable to the later editions. However, because it is felt that the reader will be interested in learning of the authoritative approbation accorded the original edition of this book, the letter is printed below:

ARMY AND NAVY STAFF COLLEGE

Office of the Commandant

Washington 25, D. C.

5 July 1944

Lieut.-Colonel J. D. Hittle, U.S.M.C.

United States Marine Corps School

Quantico, Virginia

Dear Colonel Hittle:

I have read with interest and profit your manuscript covering the staff organizations and functions of the Armies of France, Germany, Great Britain and the United States, together with the historical background.

It is a well prepared, highly professional document and shows the result of much research and hard work in its preparation, and should constitute a valuable contribution, especially at this time, to the study of command and staff organization in our Armed Forces.

Sincerely yours,

S/J. L. DeWitt

J. L. DeWitt

Lieutenant-General, U.S. Army

Author’s Preface

Shortly after joining the staff of the Marine Corps Schools, I began research preparatory to writing a lecture on staff history. As my study extended past the reading of encyclopedia articles, I discovered to my amazement that there was no single book to which one could turn for information on the evolution of the staff doctrine of modern armies through the course of military history.

While the average military reader has a reasonably clear understanding, for instance, of how artillery, cavalry, or aviation has developed, few individuals have a definite idea of the historic significance of military staffs. To some, the staff and the manner in which it does its work is merely a device contrived by writers of school texts and field manuals for academic purposes. Actually, such views are not substantiated by historical facts. The staff system has a history and development as well defined as any of the phases of the military art. Just as infantry, or the other arms experienced continuous changes and improvements, the staff has also undergone constant evolution. The staff doctrine of modern armies is no modern invention; it is the cumulative result of a long evolutionary process. Most persons can better appreciate a thing when they know the steps by which it came into being. It is for those that these pages have been written.

The subject is intentionally not handled in minute detail, for to have made this discussion an encyclopedic history of the military staff would have defeated its purpose. There may be some question as to why I have carried the survey back into early ancient eras. This was done because I do not feel that it is possible to point to any one stage of military history and say; "This is the origin of the staff," To have skipped the ancient era would have resulted in overlooking the early precedents and from the historical standpoint would have made the survey incomplete.

I have attempted to adjust the principal chapters of the book to the pattern of staff evolution. Prior to Gustavus Adolphus (King of Sweden, 1594-1632) there was a common continuity to all staff development. Subsequent to his death at the Battle of Lützen, the national character of armies became more pronounced and staff systems, with national military institutions, acquired individual characteristics. That is the reason for dividing the post-Gustavian discussion into five separate chapters, one each for German, French, British, United States, and Russian staff development. The Russian chapter, not included in the original edition, traces the history and concept of the Russian General Staff system both prior to and after the Revolution.

There may be disagreement on some of my basic conclusions, particularly my evaluation of the Napoleonic period in terms of its influence on subsequent staff history. Any historical survey that is more than a mere recitation of events, involves an interpretation of facts, and interpretations often vary. However, I feel no hesitation in presenting these conclusions, for they are not only based on my personal research, but they have been substantiated by consultation with military historians of recognized authority.

Since initial publication in 1945 The Military Staff has rapidly become a standard text on the history and development of military staff systems. It is now on the principal military reading lists. The later editions contain the chapters of the first edition brought up to date, to which has been added a chapter on the Russian staff, both under the Tzars and the Soviets.

It is hoped that this book will help fill one of the many voids in our nation’s military library. If it should stimulate further research and writing on the same subject, I shall feel that it has more than justified the effort that has gone into its production.

J. D. HITTLE

Washington, D.C.

January 1961

A good staff has the advantage of being more lasting than the genius of a single man.—GENERAL ANTOINE HENRI JOMINI (1779-1865)

Chapter One — From the Nile to Lützen

When some unknown warrior chief asked for help or advice from one of his co-belligerents, military history saw the first functioning of the military staff.

WHEN the first primitive men fought each other, about the only weapons they required were sizable stones and clubs. Little pre-planning was necessary, for prehistoric combat was generally spontaneous, dependent for its outbreak on the degree of hunger or belligerent emotion possessed by the combatants. Under such conditions, warfare began to develop and, based upon such foundations, unencumbered by complications involving procedure, procurement of material, or the realities of logistics, it flourished in rugged simplicity.

STAFF BEGINNINGS

Armed combat, like man who first engaged in it, did not remain static. Akin to all other lines of endeavor which the human race adopted and cherished, combat developed with the mind of man and with the progress of civilization. Eventually, mankind developed greater powers of thought, probed into the unknown, and added to a constantly deepening well of knowledge.

Since fighting was essential to self-preservation and remained the prime law of life, it was only natural that each new science and mechanical invention was evaluated in its application to the existing means of warfare. Where club-wielding Neanderthals once bashed away at each other, eventually fighting for mere physical survival of individuals was replaced by mass combat for group domination, accompanied by the attendant complications of strategies and administration.

As time went by, methods of waging battles increased in complexity. So long as the size of the forces was sufficiently modest as to enable all participants to hear the orders of the chief, and the conflict was of such limited duration that each combatant could carry his own food and weapons, the direction of warfare required little more than a single leader on each side. One man, possessing the sagacity necessary to outguess his adversary in matters of minor tactics, was a winning leader. He could devote his entire attention to the operational considerations of the impending battle. He had no need for an elaborate intelligence system, and he did not command a vast army requiring coordinated control by means of orders devised long before the battle. Logistics was the least of the worries of the primitive warrior chief, for each of his men armed and fed himself. All the leaders had to do was make hasty, improvised decisions, arrange their men accordingly, shout the battle cry, and have at the other fellows. In many ways it is unfortunate that these simple tactics did not continue. But as the field of battles expanded, the more the leader had to do. When army organization gradually emerged from its prehistoric rudiments, a method began to exert itself. Certain things had to be done before any army could take the field. Even semi-permanent forces had to be provided with food; weapons had progressed beyond the rock missiles and clubs. With the increase in numbers of forces, the greater became accompanying administrative problems. Finally the magnitude of the task of managing an army threatened to deny chieftains sufficient time to decide the manner in which to array their troops for combat. Increasing complexities of fighting carried warfare beyond the directive capabilities of any one man.

When some unknown warrior chief asked help or advice from one of his co-belligerents, military history saw the first functioning of the military staff.

What is a Staff?

Before going further, it might be well to come to an understanding of what is meant by the word staff as used in the military sense. The Staff Officers’ Field Manual of the United States Army defines the staff as follows: The staff of a unit consists of the officers who assist the commander in his exercise of command. About 50 years ago, General Bronsart von Schellendorff, of the German Great General Staff, wrote his classic treatise on staff organization and functioning, entitled The Duties of the General Staff. In it he defined the staff as the assistants of the commander. Although the basic meaning of the term staff is the same in all armies, the manner in which the staffs are organized and the methods under which they operate differ widely among the various military systems in the world.

While the composition of headquarters staffs may differ materially, all staffs perform the basic functions of procuring information for the commander, preparing details of his plans, translating his decisions and plans into orders, and then causing the orders to be transmitted to the troops. It is also, according to our theories of staff functioning, the duty of the staff to bring to the commanders attention any matters which require his action, or about which he should be informed, and make a continuous study of the existing situation and prepare tentative plans for possible future action. Another important function of the staff officer is to supervise the execution of plans and orders and to carry out the commander’s intentions.

By considering the many duties performed by the commander’s assistants, we may understand why these assistants eventually become known as the staff, an organization representing something the leader had to lean on in the exercise of his duties of command.

Around the basic staff duties there has been constructed over a period of many years a minutely and conventionally detailed method of procedure which permits all matters coming under the cognizance of the staff to be handled in a definite manner. This is known as staff functioning.

While an officer of the staff has the responsibility of translating the decision of the commander into an order, causing that order to be issued to the troops and then supervising the execution of the order, the staff officer does not as such possess the authority to command. Staff officers are considered as acting in the name of the commander; the authority they possess is solely the authority of the commander, whom they serve as spokesmen.

There is often much misunderstanding connected with the use of the term general staff. The adjective general does not imply that the duties are broad or indefinite in nature, but rather that they are associated with matters vitally concerning the general who is commanding the force. In a more correct sense the general staff as we think of it today could well be called a general’s staff or a generalship staff.

Headquarters Staffs and Field Staffs

Although an understanding of the basic meaning of general staff is not particularly involved, there is often some difficulty in sensing the manner in which the term is specifically applied in the staff systems in the armies of the various nations.

Most military systems have two types of staffs, one composed of the group of officers who formulate the plans for executing the nation’s military policy, and another group consisting of those who function as the assistants, or staff, of field commanders.

The first group, responsible for the general direction of a nation’s army, which at the order of the country’s highest military authority prepares the plans for the execution of national military policy, and which determines the manner in which the field forces are to be utilized, is what might be referred to as the General Staff. All nations possessing an organized army have in their national army headquarters an organization which approximates the functions of a general staff. However, the exact terminology as well as the composition and functional methods of each nation’s highest army agency varies according to the military laws of the individual country.

Another source of confusion in the discussion of staff organization arises from the fact that general staff officers are often found in the headquarters of the field commanders, Wherever the officers exercising higher staff functions have been formed into a separate corps, or similar organization, we find it is necessary to have some means of distinguishing between those serving on the general staff of the top army commander, and those filling high staff positions with the field commands. Consequently, where a General Staff Corps has been created by any country, we find some explanatory term usually employed to distinguish between officers of the higher staff organization and those who, although members of the staff corps, are attached to the command echelons of the field commands. In Germany, after the establishment of the staff system of Moltke, the former group was often referred to as members of the Great General Staff, and the latter as the General Staff with troops. The same general method prevails in the United States, with the exception that duty with the highest army general staff agency means duty with the Department of the Army General Staff in Washington. (Similarly, in the Air Force it would include duty with the General Staff in the Headquarters, United States Air Force. Such duty would also include duty with the Joint Staff under the Joint Chiefs of Staff.) Officers of the General Staff Corps assigned to field staffs are described as performing general staff duties with troops.

The higher field commanders are assigned one or more officers of the General Staff Corps as assistants and the lower command echelons have staffs, usually patterned after the higher units; however the officers serving on the lower staffs are not officers of the General Staff Corps as they are regular line officers assigned temporarily to such duty.

From the standpoint of functioning and status there are three basic types of staffs—

(1) Staffs at the governmental level operating as the highest staff agency of the armed forces. At the governmental level staffs usually follow one of two general forms: The supreme or national general staff possessing operational control over the armed forces, exemplified by the German Oberkommando of World War II, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff system such as exists in the United States, which is the top-level planning and advisory staff to the President and the Secretary of Defense, and which effects a unity of authority to plan with responsibility in execution of plans by having the uniformed chiefs of services also members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

(2) Staffs at the departmental (Army, Navy, Air Force) service level, directing their respective service generally as does the Department of the Army General Staff. The organization and functioning of the various departmental service staffs are usually set by statute and may differ considerably.

(3) Field staffs functioning as the staff assistants to the various field commanders.

To the above might also be added the staffs of administrative headquarters and various non-operational commands. Staffs of such agencies vary greatly according to the nature of their particular activities, and do not, therefore, fall into a distinct category.

In practically every nation the establishment of a supreme or departmental level staff has prefaced the organization of staffs within the subordinate field commands. Wherever an efficient higher staff has been organized, the lower staffs throughout the entire army have reflected that efficiency. Although the pattern of organization in the field staffs seldom conforms exactly to the nation’s higher staff agencies, the relative efficiency has been surprisingly comparable. This is apparently due to the fact that any staff organization throughout an army is dependent for its origin and stimulus upon the higher staff organization.

Evolution of Staff System in Field Commands

In tracing the historical development of staff systems it is not always possible to separate the development of general staffs at governmental or departmental (service) level from the development of staff systems of field commands. This is due to the fact that frequently during the course of staff history basic principles of organization and procedure were evolved initially at the highest military level and then were applied in subordinate military echelons.

This survey is primarily concerned with the evolution of military staff systems as used in the army field commands, and therefore general staffs at higher levels are considered essentially from the standpoint of their influence on the staffs of the subordinate field commands. It is not the purpose of this book to explore and analyze the politico-military ramifications of general staffs at governmental level although, obviously, such would be a broad and worthwhile field for research. The results of such studies would be useful in further explaining how supreme, or national, general staffs have at times become more than mere instruments for achieving military efficiency. They have become agencies that possess, accumulate, and exercise vast—although often indirect—power in the social, political, and economic activities of a nation.

FIELD STAFF IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

A brief examination of the manner in which the staffs of field forces are organized in the United States Army at the present time will aid one to follow and evaluate the various steps in the evolution of the staff system as it is traced in the following pages.

The staff of a division or larger unit is subdivided into two main groups in addition to the personal staff group of the commander. The first is known as the general staff group. It is organized to handle all the functions of command and is composed of officers of the General Staff Corps of the Army and officers who are detailed as assistants. The second is termed the special staff group. It includes technical specialists such as the ordnance officer, quartermaster, signal officer, surgeon, chemical officer, engineer officer and the artillery officer, who are special staff advisors to the commander in all matters pertaining to their branches, and at the same time usually serve also as troop commanders of their specialist troops. The special staff also includes administrative officers, such as the adjutant general, the chaplain, the finance officer, the inspector general, the judge advocate, the provost marshal, the public information officer, and the special services officer.

Thus, it can be seen that the officers of the special staff group, unlike the officers of the general staff group, can possess a command in addition to being advisory staff officers.

The United States staff organization is based generally on the four-sectional organization. By this system the general staff group is often divided into four sections, each section having certain definite duties. Underlying this theory of staff organization is the assumption that all duties of a commander can be divided into four principal functions which are: Personnel, Military Intelligence, Operations and Training, and Logistics. Following the four-sectional method of organization the general staff group is divided into four sections, each having supervision over one of the above functional subdivisions of command. The officers who are in charge of the sections are known as the chiefs of section. Additional sections may be added according to the particular needs of a specific command.

Duties of Four Sections

The first section is the personnel section of the staff and the chief of the section is known as G1. This section of the staff is charged with all matters concerning the personnel of the command, civilians under control of the command and prisoners of war. This includes, for instance, planning and supervision of matters concerning procurement, classification, assignment, pay, promotion, transfer, retirement, and discharge of personnel; decorations, citations, honors, and awards; religious, recreational, and welfare work; postal service, morale, stragglers, collection and disposition of prisoners of war, and relations with civil government and civilians in the theater of operations. These, and many more specific duties, come under the direction of the first section.

The second section of the staff is concerned with military intelligence, and the chief of this section is known as G2. This section is charged with all matters pertaining to the collection, evaluation, interpretation, and distribution of information of the enemy and with counterintelligence activities. It could well be said that the primary function of the second section is to keep the commander informed regarding the enemy’s situation and capabilities, the weather, and the terrain.

The third section of the staff, under the direction of G3, is charged with the functions which relate to organization, training, and combat operations. It is the G3, often known as the operations officer, who translates the commander’s tactical decisions into the form in which they are issued as orders.

The fourth section of the staff is responsible for matters concerning logistics. The chief of this section is G4. He advises the commander of the amount of supply support which can be given to any proposed plan of operations and controls all arrangements for effecting the supply and evacuation of the troops of the command. In performing these staff duties, the G4 of the staff is also responsible, in coordination with G1, for the preparation of the orders which regulate all administrative functions of the command.

Chief of Staff as Coordinator

In the staff of each echelon the size of a division or larger there is a chief of staff who coordinates the activities of the chiefs of the four sections of the staff who in turn are designated as assistant chiefs of staff so as to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. The organization and procedures of Marine Corps staffs are, except for small variations, identical to those of the Army. Such minor differences as exist are the results of adjusting Army staff doctrine to make it applicable to the requirements of the Marine Corps’ amphibious specialty.

The chief of staff supervises the work and relationships of the general and special staff groups. It is his duty to keep the commander informed of any situation, and to represent the commander during his temporary absence. Upon receipt of orders from the commander, the chief of staff gives the necessary instructions and amplifications to the staff and allots the detailed work of preparing plans and orders. He also takes steps to insure that all instructions published to the command are in accord with the policies and plans of the commander. After the issuance of orders, the chief of staff, with the assistance of the general and special staff groups, sees that the orders and instructions of the commander are properly executed. In lower echelons the duties corresponding to those discussed for the chief of staff are assigned to the executive officer.

In the system just described we can see that there are certain characteristics which must be possessed by a staff system before it can be considered to exist and function according to the modern understanding of the term. These features are: A regular educational system for training staff officers, delegation of authority from the commander, supervision of the execution of the orders issued by or through the staff, and a set method of procedure by which each part performs certain specified duties. It will be well to keep these basic characteristics in mind as the reader follows the development of staff organization, for it will help in evaluating the various historical staffs in terms of modern staff theory.

In this connection it should be remembered that particularly in the earlier periods of military development the term staff had a very indefinite meaning, for it was broadly applied to the entire group of officers detailed to the headquarters of the commander. Until a relatively recent date it often included the various general officers commanding the subordinate units of a command.

The development of the staff system is essentially the story of how, through custom and necessity, certain specific duties gradually were assigned to these various officers who were part of the headquarters personnel of the commander.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

In the historical approach to any phase of military development it is necessary to arrive at certain conclusions as to the periods of history into which the subject matter will be segregated. Obviously, some periods have been more productive than others in their contribution to military history. Any survey of military history must recognize the fact that some eras have witnessed great contributions to military thought, while other periods have been relatively barren. Generally, productive military thought in any era has evolved simultaneously with cultural and scientific progress. It is paradoxical, but true, that the periods which have contributed most to the development of civilization have also contributed the means by which mankind could more efficiently engage in