Art P. wrote:
Hans – Karl is absolutely correct...because it is nothing but a typical approaching column...

G’Day Art:

Thanks for that. So a colonne par regiment was a typical approach column.

Art P. wrote.
Ney understood that the standing regulations and system in the French Army were ambiguous in many points...and defective in others... It was his point and purpose to show his officers which manoeuvres were defective and demonstrate which manoeuvres were the most effective and implistic in nature.

Therefore what may seem hardly typical for us...were commonly used manoeuvres of his time...but he scrutinized which ones he thought were best for him and his Officers...but you shall find that Davout...Marmont...Schauenbourg...Scharnhorst...all do the same..

GH: Yes, I understand the purpose for such treatises and manuals, and it certainly was the style of the period to over- explain things in regulations and manuals, treatises and the like. I have read few that don't provide that type of obvious details. [I have heard the word 'pendantic' used to describe Dundas's British, most Prussian until 1812, the French, and Austrian regulations...] AND I have only basic ideas as to what was 'typical' when it comes to such formations, so that is good to know. I certainly wasn't questioning the truth of that, just making sure I understood what 'it' was...

The question I had about regimental columns referred to the effort Ney went to in describing how to form such a 'typical' approach column. It is surprising that Ney gives such basic instructions [obvious--even I know the details he describes...] so far into his treatise. By the time Ney is writing, What French officer wouldn't have had experience--and read other treatises--in forming such typical, common formations? It is curious. I can think of several possible explanation, but that is just me guessing.

Art, two questions:
1. if a colonne par regiment is a regiment's battalions situated one behind the other in a single column, what is a 'colonne par bataillon' or 'battaillons'?

2. What could be the *possible* difference between something called 'en colonnes d'attaque' in describing the approach formation of one division and then the following division of the same corps in a formation specifically called "en colonnes d'attaque par bataillon"? This is one French veteran officer writing to another.

Thanks for the clarification. I hope you can shed some light on the two questions.

Best Regards,

Bill H.