Thanks for the explanations. Very interesting and your explanation of Maransin's comments make sense. From what he wrote, he certainly felt that there was a difference in formation between Girard and Gazan's divisions.

From what you say, I'm not sure whether you believe that "en colonnes d'attaque" meant that the columns were in attack column formation, ready to deploy/unfold on the center or not. Certainly the regulations before and after 1807/1811 label that specific column formation an attack column.

If it is referring to that formation for the divisions' columns, then there would have been the expectation that the columns would have been at deployment distance, at least.

Or is there another meaning for attack columns in this case?

Thanks again. It is amazing how technical languages 'stuff' a great deal of meaning into specific terms, which then require a lot of description to describe to the untechnical...

Best Regards,

Bill H.