“There was a time when militaries tried, at least, to restrict combat to combatants.”
When was that? Romans? Visigoths? Huns? The Crusades? Gengis Khan? The War of the Roses? The Reformation? French & Indian Wars? Revolution? Civil War? Indian Wars? WWI? WWII? Korea? The Congo? The various Arab/Israeli wars? Rhodesia?
Historically wars included rape, pillage, plunder, and murder, to the victor go the spoils, razed cities, slavery. The last couple of hundred years it is more genocide, strategic bombing, or collateral damage. However, I believe we (the USA) have made enormous progress in limiting civilian casualties through policy and technology in the last 30 years.
“When was that?”
Roughly speaking, the age of Enlightenment. Traditionally in European history from the renaissance to WWI, not counting the fiercely ideological struggles of the 30 Years Wat and tge French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, though compared to the 20th century they were monuments of restraint. It ended here in the US with the Civil War, and though not on the European continent between Europeans with the Boer War.
I don’t wish to be Pollyannaish and pretend they were all gentlemen, prone to calling a halt to an advance if a butterfly happened into their path. But this was the time of mercenary armies, when princes were seen to be fighting other princes, not nations against nations. This was also when international law was developed and people pretended to follow it.
Since then we’ve slid back into barbarism with: deliberate targeting of civilians, mass mobilization, unconditional surrender demands, forced starvation, forced relocation, war crimes trials, etc. You may say it was always thusly, citing Atolls the Hun or whomever jumps to mind. But it wasn’t. There was a time.
You place “to the victors go the spoils” somewhere in history, then leap forward to modern genocide, “strategic” bombing, and collateral damage. You pretend as if nothing happened inbetween. I call the era after and before barbarism civilized warfare. It stands in judgement of both your periods.
We haven’t made progress in restricting civilian casualties. We’ve merely stopped fighting total wars. That in itself could be seen as progress, but it wasn’t by choice. You mention technology, and that’s it, though perhaps not the way you mean it. Without nukes I’m sure there’s have been a WWIII.