WD: Oh so
It occurs to me
Modern military enthusiasts laugh at brightly colored uniforms in historical militaries.
"Oh, those silly people, we know better, we use camouflage."
It would be funny
If it turned out that high-visibility colors for military personnel is a sign of civilization.
The idea here being that the combatants are civilized enough to mutually agree that friendly fire is a bad enough thing that they will sacrifice camouflage to prevent it.
I don't know what the likelihood of that is
Probably pretty low
Would be hilarious if true, though.
N_C: Given what I've heard about warfare in that era
this seems vaguely plausible
I think more likely
that command and control and morale were considered more important than being sneaky
WD: Right that does seem more likely
N_C: Being sneaky and light infantry is all fine and well until they cavalry or bayonet charge you
WD: But it is certainly true
That modern "civilizations"
Are virtually incapable of making such mutual agreements with their enemies.
N_C: We certainly don't have the channels to do so
N_C: there are a series of letters between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II before WWI
WD: The Red Telephone was considered exceptional
And is often praised as this
Miracle of Western Democracy
it's hilarious when you put it that way
The monarchs of the 19th century were doing that
All the damn time.
In many ways
The old monarchies were more peaceful during wartime
Than democracies are in peacetime
Not in all ways
N_C: I have a hard time imagining the Christmas soccer game thing happening between many peacetime rivals
let alone during an actual war
Can't have organized professional soccer games during peacetime without riots breaking out
WD: And they're clients of the same state!
N_C: Yes, in the age of Democracy, war breaks out as a result of soccer games
in the Age of Aristocracy, even the last twilight remains
soccer games broke out as a result of war