Why a ‘Lieutenant’ General Outranks a ‘Major’ General (It’s Not What You Think!)

Описание: At first glance, it makes no sense at all. In almost every situation, a Major outranks a Lieutenant. A Major commands hundreds of soldiers, while a Lieutenant is still considered a junior officer, usually just starting out. So if that’s the case, why in the world does a Lieutenant General with three stars outrank a Major General with two stars? On paper, it looks backwards — but the answer lies in centuries of military tradition, language, and a few words that were quietly dropped over time.

To understand this puzzle, we need to go back to the military systems of 16th and 17th century Europe, especially in France and Spain. Back then, armies weren’t run with the standardized rank charts we know today. Instead, ranks were tied to responsibilities, and the titles described the role a man played on the battlefield.

At the very top of command was the Captain General — the supreme commander of the entire army. This was not just a ceremonial title. The Captain General was in charge of overall strategy, deciding where and how an army moved, fought, and defended. In modern terms, this is basically the position of a full General, the highest ranking officer.

Now, a Captain General couldn’t be everywhere at once. He needed someone he trusted to act on his behalf, to step in when he couldn’t personally command every division. That’s where the Lieutenant General came in. The word “lieutenant” literally comes from the French words lieu (meaning “place”) and tenant (meaning “holder”). A lieutenant is literally a “place holder” — someone who holds the place of the commander. The Lieutenant General was the second-in-command of the entire army, trusted with authority over vast sections of the battlefield.

Underneath him came another crucial officer — the Sergeant Major General. At the time, “sergeant” didn’t mean what it does today. It wasn’t a low-ranking enlisted soldier. The term came from the Latin serviens, meaning “one who serves.” In this case, the Sergeant Major General was a senior officer who served as the chief of staff. His job was organizational: arranging troop formations, managing logistics, drilling soldiers, and making sure the army functioned like a machine. The Sergeant Major General reported directly to the Lieutenant General.

But over the centuries, language shifted. Titles were shortened. The “Captain General” simply became known as the General. The “Sergeant Major General” eventually lost the “Sergeant” part, leaving just Major General. And because of that simplification, the order looks confusing today. On paper, a “Major General” sounds like it should be senior to a “Lieutenant General,” but in reality, the Lieutenant General has always been higher in the chain of command.

This is why modern rank insignia reflects the true order. A Major General holds two stars, while a Lieutenant General holds three. Above them, of course, is the full four-star General, the direct descendant of the old Captain General. And in some countries, there’s even a five-star rank — often called “General of the Army” — used only in times of total war.

So the confusion comes down to history. The names are relics of a system that began hundreds of years ago. The Lieutenant General wasn’t called that to suggest he was junior to a Major — he was called that because he was literally the lieutenant, or deputy, of the supreme commander. The Major General wasn’t named to suggest he was “bigger” than a lieutenant — his original title was Sergeant Major General, a subordinate staff role that later got trimmed down.

Even though the old titles changed, the hierarchy never did. That’s why today, even though the words sound reversed, a Lieutenant General still outranks a Major General. It’s a perfect example of how history leaves fingerprints on modern life — in this case, on the stars worn by military officers around the world.

So the next time you see a Lieutenant General with three stars outranking a two-star Major General, you’ll know the truth. It’s not a mistake, it’s not a contradiction — it’s a direct line back to the medieval battlefield, where tradition, language, and command roles shaped the military ranks we still use today.