During the eighteenth century we find an organization of Regimental Surgeons, with attendants and stretcher bearers, and a provision of field equipment carried in wagons. Thus units corresponding to Field Ambulances were gradually organized in the armies of France, Austria, and Prussia. There were larger organizations of the same nature at Head-Quarters of the Armies, and of the Higher Commands when these were introduced in France during the Napoleonic Wars. These Field Ambulances had ambulance wagons, and other wagons carrying the dispensary and kitchen, and the necessary equipment, stores, and supplies, and were manned by a Corps of Hospital Orderlies and Stretcher Bearers. In rear of these units were stationary hospitals under military control. The Austrian organization was nearly as good as in France, but that of Prussia and other States lagged considerably behind them. In fact the Prussian troops had no medical organization, beyond the provision of regimental surgeons, at Jena, nor at Eylau, nor even at Waterloo. It was not till during the nineteenth century that modern Medical Organization gradually evolved into its present highly developed condition in all civilized armies. This can be studied in the description of the British Medical Service (Chapter X.), which is nearly identical with that of Germany, and may be considered to represent a high type of Medical Organization for War. PART V _MILITARY COMMAND_ CHAPTER XXII PRINCIPLES OF COMMAND This work will now conclude with some remarks on the nature of Military Command, the methods by which it is exercised, and the psychological characteristics of soldiers and their leaders. The final chapter is devoted to the last subject, a matter worth deeper consideration in connection with Command than it has yet received. When it is remembered that, as stated in the first chapter, it is the main object of Organization to facilitate Command, the reason for touching on these subjects in this work will be obvious. MODE OF EXERCISING COMMAND Supreme Command in war is either exercised by the Sovereign or by a Commander-in-Chief who acts as his deputy, or, in a Republic or Constitutional State, as agent of the Government. In either case, on him the authority of the State is devolved as regards the operations of the war. Governments have not always been wise in their control of the Military Commander or in their direction of operations. Glaring instances may be found in history, notably in the conduct of war by the younger Pitt, by the Aulic Council in Vienna, and by Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, the correct principles on which a Government should control its Commanders in war are exemplified in the highest degree in those of the elder Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham. To his wisdom and judgment in conducting operations by sea and land over all the world must be credited much of the brilliant success of the Seven Years’ War.