Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "Sir Garnet Wolseley's Ashanti Ring Uncovered" video.

It was never a hard rule really, more that cravats were near universal early in the period (to the point were the neckcloth was seen as one of the most distinctive items of European dress), they usually didn't wear them straight on the skin but over a tall collar on their linen shirts, as cotton came in and with a formalization of fashion (even further) starched (for stiffness) detachable collars (for easy cleaning) came in and were typically of upright design, it wouldn't be until as few decades later that these stiff collars started to take the form of modern collars though still quite big by our standards (and of course starched and detachable), and to be worn with tie, this change was probably earlier in children's fashion as it was exceptionally diverse. Soft cloth collars probably came in with WW1 and army uniforms though many shirts at least early in the war were collarless, pictures I've seen from the 20's show a mix and my great-grandparents still wore starched collars in the 50's. Of course my knowledge is limited and I believe books on the fashion of the period will include a lot more and better information.
1
The British were seen as having a first rate army (which they did), the thing they were mocked for by the other European powers was it's size. Also our cavalry was always of questionable quality, though as WW1 proved that didn't matter so much as long as you had it (we likely would have lost in 1917 without cavalry acting as a mobile reserve, and 1918 probably would have ended in an actual stab in the back for Germany without the cavalry exploiting the breakthrough, also that breakthrough probably wouldn't have happened if the Germans hadn't disbanded or sent East all of theirs). The British military was constantly modernising and unlike France and Russia they mostly proved able to rise to the occasion even with the utter stupidity of the politicians and their total disregard for lives (despite the stereotypes generals made the best of what they had as they would be fired and replaced if they failed to meet deadlines for attacks decided in drawingrooms by imbeciles). The problem is that bruteforcing tactical victories typically erodes strategic options as you are flagrantly wasting resources which are finite and irreplaceable (in that you are also killing their potential to produce children, having a long knock on weakening of the nation, also the best people tend to take the disproportionately highest casualties), namely human lives.
1