Dogs And Stirrups

[Northern Neil]

A sad little story: In the early 5th century, the chain of Roman signal stations along the north eastern (Yorkshire) coast of Britain were sacked and burnt, possibly by Pictish raiders. Archaeological investigation of the one at Scarborough discovered, in the charcoal layer, the skeleton of a man who had sustained serious head wounds. Lying across his body was the skeleton of a large, thick set dog. The interpretation of this is that the dog died protecting his master, one of the watchmen who garrisoned the station.

[monkey]

Cool, can I have a source on that last post please?

 

Am writing a paper on Canis Pugnax so am really interested to hear (with sources if poss) any stories/reports you guys could come up with.

 

As regards the Molosser Myth, I would also direct you to the excellent Col. David Hancock who has done much original research into most large breeds (just in the interest of a different point of view - I can never let one person clear something up for me, I'd rather be confused!) Many thanks for the article - it has me thinking.....

 

I include a link to a segment of his writings here with thanks to Mr Kenny James:

 

http://www.cane9corso.co.uk/start.php?type...nt&name=colonel

[Northern Neil]

Cool, can I have a source on that last post please?

 

Sorry - it was Goldsborough (5 miles or so up the coast) not Scarborough.

 

Some information can be found here.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Northern Neil

[Jimbow]

His assailant, alongside, died with the jaws of a dog gripped at his throat.

 

Is there any evidence that the 'assailant' wasn't just the 'defender' with the dog clamped to his throat?

 

I'm very sceptical about the whole Roman 'war dog' thing. There are no literary sources to support it, and let's face it, it would have been very noteworthy. Other cultures yes, I have no problem with it, but people saying "there were" have so far come up with no actual contemporary sources.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Jimbow

[monkey]

That's why I'm writing the paper! The use of dogs in war situations has always fascinated me and whilst it may take me some years I will find out!

 

I agree that evidence is scant and some seems circumstantial, but this is the case with many things - hypothesising eventually leads somewhere.

 

One cannot deny that there were dogs of some stature about in war settings (not necessarily the whole Ceasar vs Britain Mastiff thing which is most oft quoted) and there were some pretty massive dogs about in general.

 

In the interests of this if anyone can tell me where I can find a bigger version of this I'd appreciate it:

 

http://www.mustangmastiffs.com/webpage-graphics/moloser2.jpg

 

thanks for all the info so far and keep it coming.

 

As far as nay saying goes, it's all part of the forum - but if you can actually come up with any sources that say there were certainly NOT any war dogs (not modern, have enough of them ta) then I'd appreciate that too!

[Jimbow]

As far as nay saying goes, it's all part of the forum - but if you can actually come up with any sources that say there were certainly NOT any war dogs (not modern, have enough of them ta) then I'd appreciate that too!

There were immunes whose role was hunting, so the likelihood is that is where they would be. I agree absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I don't see how I can come up with a source to refute war dogs in the Roman Army when I can't (nor yourself by the sounds of it) even find a source to support their use in actual combat?

 

Why not get in touch with the author of the link I posted earlier, seeing as how he seems qualified to comment? I know he says there were none, but he may have a lot of valuable information you can use anyway.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[monkey]

Waaaay ahead of you Jim, I'm waiting to hear back from about 18 different people - LONG!

 

I can see where you're coming from, totally, you're right - I can't find a reliable source YET! That's the whole point of this exercise non? Just to clarify, I wasn't asking you personally to put the kibosh on it, am simply trying to gather information!

 

Will post findings here as I.....well......find them!

 

Anna

[Jimbow]

Look forward to seeing how you get on, and nowt would please me more than to be proven a cynic and ignoramus

 

Cheers,

Jim.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Jimbow

[Northern Neil]

The Roman period (even excluding its later Byzantine phase) was such an immense length of time that I believe it would be foolhardy to categorically say that the 'Romans never used dogs in war'. The anecdote about the dog found at the signal station refers to findings of archaeologists using scientific methods, so I assume they would have checked out all variables before coming to the definite conclusion that the dog was part of the staff of the installation. I am happy to pursue this particular lead further; I would assume that archaeologists would have taken into consideration such factors as morphology of the skeletons, associated finds, breed of dog etc. etc. before arriving at their conclusion.

[Jimbow]

The Roman period (even excluding its later Byzantine phase) was such an immense length of time that I believe it would be foolhardy to categorically say that the 'Romans never used dogs in war'.

There is no evidence so far for "Roman War Dogs", that is "Roman Combat Dogs Deployed In Battle". Nowhere. None at all. Not in literary sources, nor sculptural, nor anywhere else whatsoever. However, Anna may come up with something that changes this. Caesar doesn't even mention them, which differs with many webpages.

 

If you know a source from Roman times please name it, I would sincerely love to see it.

 

The whole thing about the dog on top of the skeleton (don't forget there was another human nearby) is pure conjecture, and wishful thinking imho.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[Germanicus]

What do you think of the link below ? I know it doesn't mean dogs saw any military action, but it would definatly suggest they were present when Legionaries were making bricks in Britain.

 

dog print photo

[monkey]

Good stuff, I need to get a size on that print. Good link - thanks!

 

As an update I now have a very good mate truffling through the writings of Cassius Dio which have chucked up a couple of interesting paths to follow. Mainly about Hyenas so far. Ha ha!

 

Am also investigating a nice little piece same wonderful mate sent me:

 

I am still doing some grubbing,

now perusing Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome - but there I can only find

a reference to Roman occupying force using dogs to 'bait' the locals,

hunting them down like beasts. Nice chaps, those Romans.

 

If anyone can elaborate on this I appeal once again to your knowledge. I am off to chat with the guy who makes repro Canis pugnax war dog tags to find out why they had them if there weren't any war dogs.....

 

[Jimbow]

....I am off to chat with the guy who makes repro Canis pugnax war dog tags to find out why they had them if there weren't any war dogs.....

 

Because they could have been hunting dogs or pets

 

What do you think of the link below ?

Interesting and thanks for the link. I don't deny dogs could have been present amongst troops in the army, but as for why they were there I am yet to be convinced they were trained for and used as active participants in actual battle.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[monkey]

Yes, thankyou Jim. Chuckle.

 

They're actually sheild tags, not tags for the dogs.

 

A hunting or guard dog would have been unlikely to wear anything that would make a sound against its collar or reflect light and startle prey which was being stalked.

 

The search continues.....

[brotus maximus]

Well to the remark about if the dogs were properly trained and had one person controlling them, well I dont really know if that would work all that well unless used for a quick get in get out type job like as mentioned like, maybe against cavlery or maybe snouting for scouts or people trying to get close to the peticular army. But at the same time I can kinda see a couple of downfalls to using dogs, I may be wrong on a couple of things or straying but hear me out...

here are just a few I thought of:

 

1. to get to the idea of horses and the use of the dogs, it all depends on the breed that they were using and how well they were trained, the horses were probably used to things like dogs and things attacking them whilst they kept their load(the guys) on as best the could and the noise of battle(some how I dont think you could hear the dogs to well, barking wise i mean). where would the dogs attack(or go for) and what would pe the possibility of them getting stomped or kicked or even trampled.

 

2.with the one person controlling them:

(1.) how would they control them,

(2.)what happens if the person in question croaks because of what ever means that got them, would the dog be trianed on how to deal with that?

 

I know the last one has some speculations in it but, you know you have to think what the big points(and some minor)are and how they affect everything.

thanks for hearing me out

And as a last and final thought- obvoisly the dogs weren't to succsessfull becuase they have bein menchioned a coupel of times in history that I am aware of.(sorry for the bad spelling I have bein up for 32 hrs and counting

sighning out

brotus