Dogs And Stirrups

[Fatboy]

I'm no military expert ( or dog expert )but I can tell you this. A pack of dogs is completely useless in a true combat role.

They were indeed invaluable in vietnam among many other conflicts, finding booby traps, laying mines, following trails, hunting down VC and even dragging wounded troops to safety. They are not though, a problem in themselves to a man armed with an AK-47.

 

Dog soldiers in a set piece battle ( if that is what we are talking about here - I think it is ) is ridiculous.

Remember, dogs arent very dangerous. They are almost exclusively scavengers in the wild and only kill when the situation is thoroughly in their favour. It takes them forever to kill something cos they're not very well equipped to do it - I believe they were a popular form of execution at the Games for this very reason, they were so bad at it that people got their moneys worth of "entertainment". Yes Guard dogs and such do the job, I mean if a raging doberman attacked me I'd split cos I'd rather not tangle with him but if it was some sort of crazy battle to the death however I'd kick its ass in no time. Give me a sword, and I wouldn't even have to put out my cigarette.

 

Dogs are pretty smart but also pretty feeble. A hardened soldier would give even the nastiest of pittbulls a swift kick in the head and that would be that. Tiger soldiers, now that would be something!

 

Thats not to say it never happened I suppose, lots of weird stuff happened in History, but if I was a Roman soldier ( or any soldier ) going into battle I would not be worried about a pack of bloody dogs.

[wally1987]

Augustus, im aware of the dogs' use in more modern combat situations, however dog training in the roman era wassnt what it is today.... and dogs under the crude training methods of roman trainers were no where near sphisticated enough weapons for use to any great effect in the roman battle plans.

[monkey]

If anyone is still interested in this I've done a little piece on the Canis Pugnax and it's modern equivalents in the other war dogs thread.

 

Many thanks

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Hmm, never knew this topic existed.

Dog soldiers I would have to say would be like a secondary necessitie for in battle roles; I don't mean to use them as a offensive weapon.

Simply, it would be good to have them during a battle(id est if you ever seen Gladiator, a dog can come quite handy sometimes). Dogs weren't weapons, they were only just kept around for just the heck of it.

[Hamilcar Barca]

The ancient contemporaries make little mention of dogs playing any significant role in battle although there is some evidence of the Gauls using them as guards. Prior to the battle at the Isara River in 121BC, Orosius records that the Arvenian chieftan Bituitus (whose own troops terribly outnumbered the Romans) made a mocking remark that there were not enough Romans to feed the dogs in his camp. He was however heavily defeated.

 

I certainly agree with everything Fatboy says though. By the way, where did he go to?

[Virgil61]

I'm no military expert ( or dog expert )but I can tell you this. A pack of dogs is completely useless in a true combat role....

 

...but if I was a Roman soldier ( or any soldier ) going into battle I would not be worried about a pack of bloody dogs.

 

I'm thinking that maybe it isn't the actual harm a pack of dogs can do, it's the psychological impact of them on an army less disciplined or experienced. Maybe it's slightly analogous to cover fire in combat. Cover fire isn't always very accurate, guys are just throwing lead down-range in the direction of fire and often not a lot of harm really comes from it. Mainly it's an attempt to make the enemy keep his head down while the second friendly element moves out to an assault position or moves out of a hairy situation.

 

I can imagine a scenario during combat where packs approach an oncoming group of the enemy. Some will lash out at the dogs breaking whatever formation they have and others might simply hesitate or get freaked out a bit. Whatever else is going on it might work in breaking the concentration of the attacking force. A lot of time would go into training and I imagine the payoff wasn't worth all the effort, especially if armies had faced it more than once or so.

 

Against a group of disciplined Romans or a seasoned force it may not work as well.

[Germanicus]

I can't really say I have any special knowledge in the area, but have witnessed attacks by packs of Dogs both at home, and in Thailand and would have to agree that an undisciplines force would be susceptable. Pit bulls don't stop after cracks over the head with baseball bats, so....

[longbow]

I've no idea how the Romans used war dogs, if they used them at all.I have read about the saxons using them though and the saxons valued the animals highly.When the saxon horde was attacking a shieldwall they would let loose the dogs so the mutts hit the wall just before the warriors did,the dog impact created gaps in the wall the warriors could get into and thus break the shield wall easier.They were big animals, like the bullenbauser breeds (now extinct) so i suppose they could of created some confusion just before the initial impact,i dont think many of them would survive the battles though.

[Pertinax]

I understand that (nowadays ) the greatest obstacle to any military use of the dog is the distress caused to handlers by by having an animal killed or injured <( I say military to include sniffer roles ).So that in situations where the animal might prove useful the handlers are loathe to risk the animal.

[monkey]

The brits used a longer legged version of the Bulldog (of celt origin) for attacking legs, and large mastiff type breeds for major mauling and guard/hunt duties. There are also the obligatory wolfhound/lurcher breeds.

 

The Romans were pretty fascinated by the molossers I believe and developed them into the Canis Pugnax, the closest version of which we have today being the Cane Corso (or Sicilian mastiff) and the Neopolitan Mastiff. When they were retuned to Rome they were set upon the fiercer animals in sport combat, and the same in the UK.

 

If I'm not entirely mistaken Canis pugnax and their owner/trainers were issued with the original 'dog tags' which could help pair them up/identify them after battle. I think most Mollossers were issued with large protruding spiked collars to assist with goring cavalry and in guard situation to prevent attacks on the throat.

 

I own a Cane corso and would recomend checking out cane xi cane corso for a nice comparison shot of an engraving of a Roman and his Canis Pugnax and a very large corso called Franco.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

This is a repeat of my post in the other thread where I cover this topic in more depth.

 

As for dogs not being useful in battle, or being skittish, issuing them with tags to be reunited after battle would then have been a moot point no? If the Romans could train an army to the levels that they did they could certainly manage a few Molossers! Dogs have been used in much more recent combat and I think if they can be trained to cope with the sound of Mortars and modern warfare - even to the point where they were sent off with bombs strapped to their backs to destroy tanks (and this would not just be one but a series of animals) then the argument that they would have panicked in an ancient war setting seems laughable.

 

Cane Corsi and Neopolitan Mastiffs are also famed for their extraordinary loyalty AND a pain threshold not witnessed in any other breed.

 

I include two links for fun:

 

1 - what would YOU do if you saw these coming towards you? Many thanks to Nancy Kroper.

 

http://www.canecorsonancy.be/photogallery/actiondogs.htm

 

2 - Yes, they do do this whilst there are distractions going on....that's the point! Many thanks to Erik Storm

 

http://groups.msn.com/colossal/shoebox.msn...Photo&PhotoID=2

 

And yes, I CAN go on about this for hours!

[Jimbow]

If I'm not entirely mistaken Canis pugnax and their owner/trainers were issued with the original 'dog tags' which could help pair them up/identify them after battle.

Here's a link to a vendor who I coincidentally found last night, who makes repro tags:

Roman Officer - canis pugnax tags

 

 

He also has a private collection of genuine artefacts which are well worth checking out:

 

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[monkey]

We have been discussing these tags on the corso forums, they are very very beautiful.

[monkey]

There are now 2 threads running this topic!

 

I found this on a Corso forum and would like to share it with you, five pages of all the things an ancient Molosser would be getting up to, some great images. The sticks you will see the agitators holding are just for that - agitation - these dogs are in no way being harmed.

 

As for the guy with the doormat on his arm....

 

http://www.apexcanecorso.com/Working1.htm

 

Enjoy!

[Qvintus]

Ave !!

I personally think that the only thing dogs could be useful at was anti-cavallry actions, because horses get scared pretty easy. I guess the romans would`ve used them a sort of vanguard to break up the formation.

 

Vale

[Jimbow]

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I think you should all read this by a bulldog-loving ancient history professor:

The Mollosus Myth

 

Instead of re-quoting non-sourced generalities, he kind of clears up the whole thing for me, but then lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Be very clear on one thing, though - Julius Caesar never ever mentions British 'pugnaces' in the 2 books on De Bello Gallico.