7. Same Order with 3d Brigade as Reserve, and the
2 Corps Side by Side.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
---- ---- | ---- ---- | ---- ---- | ---- ----
---- | ---- | ---- | ----
|
|
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.

[Illustration: _Shallower Formation: Twelve Brigades in the First Line,
and Six in the Second Line._

Fig. 28.]

Second Corps. ^ First Corps.
|
2d Division. ^ 1st Division. | 2d Division. ^ 1st Division.
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
|
---- ---- ---- | ---- ---- ----
3d Division. | 3d Division.

* * * * *

Note.--In all these formations the unit is the brigade in line; but
these lines may be formed of deployed battalions, or of battalions in
columns of attack by divisions of two companies. The cavalry attached to
the corps will be placed on the flanks. The brigades might be so drawn
up as to have one regiment in the first line and one in the second.

The question here presents itself, whether it is ever proper to place
two corps one behind the other, as Napoleon often did, particularly at
Wagram. I think that, except for the reserves, this arrangement may be
used only in a position of expectation, and never as an order of battle;
for it is much better for each corps to have its own second line and its
reserve than to pile up several corps, one behind the other, under
different commanders. However much one general may be disposed to
support a colleague, he will always object to dividing up his troops for
that purpose; and when in the general of the first line he sees not a
colleague, but a hated rival, as too frequently happens, it is probable
he will be very slow in furnishing the assistance which may be greatly
needed. Moreover, a commander whose troops are spread out in a long line
cannot execute his maneuvers with near so much facility as if his front
was only half as great and was supported by the remainder of his own
troops drawn up in rear.

Th