Mark wrote:
My understanding is that Ney is describing how 4 regiments formed into a single line would convert their formation into a double line, with the option to have either the even or odd battalions in front, by first forming regimental columns by division and then closing sideways on either the second or third regiment, presumably by file marching, prior to redeploying in 2 lines. The end result would be that each regiment had a battalion in the front line, and its other battalion in the second line.

My French is very poor and this may be incorrect, so please, Ralph and Art, tell me if this is wrong.

Mark:
Okay, certainly a possibility. Why the actual description? IF he is presenting 'how to' instructions, having the battalions form two lines, THEN go into closed columns by regiment seems backwards if forming two lines is the original intent as it seems the case from the beginning sentence.

From the instructions in Coda V on page 295 of Ney's book, the only starting point that makes sense If you're description is correct Mark, is eight battalions, four regiments, in one line of battalion columns at deployment distance moving to form the two lines. The even or odd battalions move to the rear behind the front battalion and form a column by regiment.

This places the four resultant columns outside deploying distance-hence the need to close sideways. But the instructions are descriptions of alignment rather than any instructions to side-step. At least I don't see it. It certainly is possible that it is assumed, but it is strange for Ney to describe how to do somethings that seem obvious, but not others.

However, the other brief descriptions such as IV before and VI after do not seem to assume a line of battalion columns as the starting position for the descriptions as far as I can see. Ney does not give it as the starting set at any point I can find, nor is there any description of the battalions moving backward and left or right over to actually create the regimental columns--yet he indicates that the battalions should be formed on the right or left--which I would think would be obvious depending which battalion was in the front line. His instructions may assume a great many things taken for granted in his time.

I don't know--Originally, I simply wanted to know what Maransin saw as the difference between an 'attack columns' of Girard's division and columns par battalion of Gazan's when he corrected Lapene--who said Girard used 'colonnes serrees par bataillons'. Maransin stated that Girard moved towards the enemy in attack columns, Gazan 150 paces behind in attack columns by battalion. What is the distinction in formation between Girard's and Gazan's divisions that Maransin was making? How is that different from Lapene's description which Maransin was correcting?

I don't know. The question of the meaning of columns by regiment is interesting in itself, but I am not clear on it's relation to the original issue.

Best Regards,

Bill H.