this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
9 points (100.0% liked)
AskHistorians
1336 readers
20 users here now
QUESTIONS
- Be civil.
- Be specific.
- Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
- Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.
RESPONSES
- Be civil.
- Provide comprehensive answers.
- Please provide primary and secondary sources upon good faith request. Tertiary sources, like Wikipedia, are not accepted.
askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To add to the other good comments, at the time smokeless powder and radio didn't exist.
So as soon as an engagement started, the entire battlefield would be covered in thick smoke.
And without radio, commanders could only coordinate their troops' movements if they could see them.
So bright colors were essential to maintain troop cohesion and control.
Since muskets weren't very accurate and had a slow rate of fire, you relied on close formations shooting mass volleys at short range to achieve enough firepower. So you couldn't hide from your enemy during a battle no matter what you wear.
Adding to this, battlefields are chaotic and with black powder smoke and no radio, friendly fire becomes an outsized concern. It has to be very clear what side troops are on. In the U.S. Civil War there are many incidents of troops firing on the same side who are wearing the wrong color. As an example the, the Union 2nd Wisconsin took friendly fire for wearing grey uniforms.
Even today in an era of radios, smokeless powder, and extended ranges we've seen a lot of bright markings used by both sides in Ukraine in situations where they feared friendly fire more than not being camouflaged.