Dogs.

[Gaius Octavius]

At one time, the Romans used dogs (Present day Neapolitan Mastiffs?) to commence an attack. When and where? And why were they given up?

[Nephele]

Despite the warlike dogs that appear in the opening scenes of the movie Gladiator, I'm not convinced that the ancient Romans regularly used dogs for warfare. I couldn't find any ancient sources stating that they did (although it could be that I didn't look far enough).

 

When I was researching my article on the names the Romans gave their dogs, I found references to those big mastiffs of the Romans as having been bred and used primarily for guarding livestock and personal property.

 

One would think that Pliny at the very least might have had something to say in his Natural History about dogs used in Roman warfare, but he wrote only of foreign armies using wardogs:

 

"The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs, for the purposes of war; and these used to fight in the front rank, and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay." (See

Pliny's Natural History, Book 8, Chapter 61

.)

 

Here's an earlier discussion on the subject of dogs and warfare: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4443

 

-- Nephele

[G-Manicus]

"The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs, for the purposes of war; and these used to fight in the front rank, and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay." (See

Pliny's Natural History, Book 8, Chapter 61

.)

You darn well know they wouldn't be able to rely on cats!

[Gaius Octavius]

"The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs, for the purposes of war; and these used to fight in the front rank, and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay." (See

Pliny's Natural History, Book 8, Chapter 61

.)

You darn well know they wouldn't be able to rely on cats!

 

I see that you are off of your necessary lithium - again! Thank all the gods!

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

In the UK the Rotweiller (a large and heavy dog with an unsavoury reputation for attacking young children) is often touted as the descendant of roman war dogs. I've no idea if thats true or not.

[Nephele]

In the UK the Rotweiller (a large and heavy dog with an unsavoury reputation for attacking young children) is often touted as the descendant of roman war dogs. I've no idea if thats true or not.

 

Interesting that you mentioned that, Caldrail. The American Kennel Club gives a history of the Rottweiler breed, stating that while the breed's origin is "not a documented record," there is a likelihood that the breed "is descended from one of the drover dogs indigenous to ancient Rome."

 

The history goes on to relate that these dogs were indeed used by the Roman military -- but not as wardogs in the front lines of battle:

 

"The transition from Roman herding dog to the dog we know today as the Rottweiler can be attributed to the ambitions of the Roman Emperors to conquer Europe. Very large armies were required for these expeditions and the logistics of feeding that number of men became a major consideration. No means of refrigeration existed which meant that the meat for the soldiers had to accompany the troops 'on the hoof.' The services of a dog capable of keeping the herd intact during the long march were needed. The above-described 'Mastiff-type' was admirably suited to both that job and the additional responsibility of guarding the supply dumps at night."

 

It's an interesting article, that you can read in its entirety here.

 

Here in the States, as well as in the U.K. (as you mentioned), the Rottweiler occasionally receives bad press for being a "dangerous" dog. But, actually, it's people who are dangerous when they deliberately breed and train dogs to be aggressive. The problem with the more intimidating breeds is that they do possess the jaw strength to do some real damage if they're trained to do so, or otherwise abused. But I've personally known pit bulls and Rottweilers who are soft as grease and wonderful family dogs.

 

I know that your government has passed the "Dangerous Dog Act" over there, which bans the ownership of pit bulls and a few other breeds. Haven't there been recent calls and petitions over in the U.K. to add the Rottweiler to that list of banned dog breeds?

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

Don't know how reliable this is:

 

"Throughout History, canines have been a vital element of warfare. In the early days of the Roman Empire, almost 2000 years ago, dogs were outfitted with armor and trained to attack the enemy. Great leaders like Fredrick the Great and Napoleon have also used wardogs in their military operations. And more recently, in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War, individual dogs have become so courageous that they have been reccomended for the Silver Star and countless Purple Hearts."

 

From: http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com...ogs-of-war.html

[Faustus]

But, actually, it's people who are dangerous when they deliberately breed and train dogs to be aggressive. The problem with the more intimidating breeds is that they do possess the jaw strength to do some real damage if they're trained to do so, or otherwise abused. But I've personally known pit bulls and Rottweilers who are soft as grease and wonderful family dogs.

 

I know that your government has passed the "Dangerous Dog Act" over there, which bans the ownership of pit bulls and a few other breeds. Haven't there been recent calls and petitions over in the U.K. to add the Rottweiler to that list of banned dog breeds?

 

-- Nephele

 

Having owned a pit bull from pup to old age, which had been saved from the ultimate abuse of being chained up in the basement of an abandoned house, I developed a theory about the intensity of their disposition. They, like people, are subject to frustration. Frustration originates from being denied the outlet one is most able to derive pleasure from. A dog, but a pit bull in particular, is an animal of the pack and identifies with those it is closest to as a pack member, with all the hierarchical (pecking order) status positions which that implies. The greatest pleasure for one of these dogs is to participate in "action" or "work" with their human pack member. A dog chained to a post is not experiencing a quality life, but instead suffers from grievous frustration and confusion.

 

Besides properly

[Nephele]

Don't know how reliable this is:

 

"Throughout History, canines have been a vital element of warfare. In the early days of the Roman Empire, almost 2000 years ago, dogs were outfitted with armor and trained to attack the enemy. Great leaders like Fredrick the Great and Napoleon have also used wardogs in their military operations. And more recently, in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War, individual dogs have become so courageous that they have been reccomended for the Silver Star and countless Purple Hearts."

 

From: http://militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com...ogs-of-war.html

 

 

The blogger does not give any ancient sources to support his statements that "dogs were outfitted with armor and trained to attack the enemy" in "the early days of the Roman Empire." Despite the fact that Pliny did mention (as I posted above) that certain foreign armies (but apparently not the Romans) used dogs for warfare, it looks to me as though the blogger is merely perpetuating myth, which so many sites on the 'net seem to do. His information on dogs used during wartime in more modern days, and having been recognized for their service, is correct, though.

 

Kudos to you, Faustus, for having rescued a pit bull pup! While I agree with everything you said about the importance of socializing the dog towards people (and you said that very well), I don't agree with you that "probably certain breeds should become extinct to remove the threat." While I'm not into breeding dogs, myself, I can understand the enthusiasm of people devoted to various dog breeds. I have a number of rescued miniature pinschers, from my stint in dog rescue, and I'm fond of the breed. But even my little minpin ankle-biters can be dangerous as a pack should an intruder wander onto my property. (Think of piranha.)

 

The thing is that any breed of dog can be dangerous, as dogs are animals of course and animals can be unpredictable. It's dog-owners who need to be responsible -- and I don't think responsible people who want to own a particular breed of dog should be made to suffer on account of the irresponsible. I'm certainly opposed to government telling us what breeds of dogs we may or may not own. And I definitely would hate to see the U.S. turn into another Communist China, which bans the ownership of all dogs in their cities.

 

-- Nephele

[Melvadius]

[<SNIP>

Interesting that you mentioned that, Caldrail. The American Kennel Club gives a history of the Rottweiler breed, stating that while the breed's origin is "not a documented record," there is a likelihood that the breed "is descended from one of the drover dogs indigenous to ancient Rome."

 

The history goes on to relate that these dogs were indeed used by the Roman military -- but not as wardogs in the front lines of battle:

<SNIP>

 

Here in the States, as well as in the U.K. (as you mentioned), the Rottweiler occasionally receives bad press for being a "dangerous" dog. But, actually, it's people who are dangerous when they deliberately breed and train dogs to be aggressive. The problem with the more intimidating breeds is that they do possess the jaw strength to do some real damage if they're trained to do so, or otherwise abused. But I've personally known pit bulls and Rottweilers who are soft as grease and wonderful family dogs.

 

I know that your government has passed the "Dangerous Dog Act" over there, which bans the ownership of pit bulls and a few other breeds. Haven't there been recent calls and petitions over in the U.K. to add the Rottweiler to that list of banned dog breeds?

 

-- Nephele

 

I would agree that there is inherently no such thing as a bad dog, just a badly trained dog which has led to a lot of the bad press that some dog breeds receive - generally that means they have been illtreated or left untrained for too long leading to the obvious consequences especilly if they meet unusual circumstances and become frightened.

 

However as far as the early history of the various mastiff breeds is concerned most of the 'histories' in my view appear to have been built up from coincidental appearances of particular modern breeds with ancient models and/or statues coupled with reading of a very few ancient texts being interpreted as providing positive proof for those same breeds. However often the ancient texts are fundamentally unclear on the most basic of topics including whether a particular 'type' (rather than 'breed') of dog was good for either hunting game or alternatively for guarding flocks from predators (and then whether from wild animals or humans).

 

The obvious exception is Tacitus' statement about Britain being a source of swift hunting dogs, although here the Scottish Deer Hound and/or Irish Setter can probably lay a better claim to being direct descendents of a particular 'type' of dog than the Naeopolitan Mastiff.

 

BTW Some of the Neapolitan Mastiff sites acknowledge that as a recognized breed it has only been in existence for at most 70 years while the Rottweiller ancient history as a 'breed' is probably similarily suspect.

[Nephele]

However as far as the early history of the various mastiff breeds is concerned most of the 'histories' in my view appear to have been built up from coincidental appearances of particular modern breeds with ancient models and/or statues coupled with reading of a very few ancient texts being interpreted as providing positive proof for those same breeds. However often the ancient texts are fundamentally unclear on the most basic of topics including whether a particular 'type' (rather than 'breed') of dog was good for either hunting game or alternatively for guarding flocks from predators (and then whether from wild animals or humans).

 

Well noted, Melvadius! Even the AKC website states that the given origin of the Rottweiler is derived from "actual history tempered by reasonable supposition" and that it descends from a "mastiff-type" used by the ancient Romans.

 

The AKC's history of the Neapolitan Mastiff does state that it was a "dog of war" used by the Roman army but, again, it seems that "dog of war" is a general term for what dogs might have been used by the Roman army in actuality (more likely they were used for driving cattle, guarding, etc.). The breed was also probably descended from a "mastiff-type," with the breed that is known today as the Neapolitan Mastiff (again, as given in its history by the AKC) having been "rediscovered in Italy in the 1940's."

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

Some thoughts:

 

If the early Romans did use dogs to open a battle, then when the legionaries clashed, the dogs would like as not attack their own in the melee.(?) They would probably give up the practice after one or two tries.

From my ancient memory. A lion facing a Masai warrior with a spear, was dog meat.

 

To expand this a bit. A Roman army, on the march, did so with cattle in the rear or middle???

[caldrail]

I know that your government has passed the "Dangerous Dog Act" over there, which bans the ownership of pit bulls and a few other breeds. Haven't there been recent calls and petitions over in the U.K. to add the Rottweiler to that list of banned dog breeds?

 

-- Nephele

Often. Especially after a pair of these dogs ripped a young child apart. problem is, the same people who want agressive powerful dogs are the same people who don't give a fig for Dangerous Dog Acts. This is however an interesting point, because the romans were dealing with potentially or very dangerous animals almost on a daily basis. I imagine they accepted the risk to some extent, but I don't recall any mention in roman sources of people suffering animal attacks outside the arena.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

The Romans were not the first, but may very well have used war dogs the most effectively. The Roman Army had whole companies composed entirely of dogs. Sometimes they were starved before battle, then unleashed on an unsuspecting enemy. Their dog of choice was the great Molossian dogs of Epirus, specifically trained for battle. These dogs, halved starved and ferocious, helped spread the Roman Empire across the ancient world. They dominated battles until they meet their match in the Britain, where powerful Mastiffs called Pugnaces Britanniae had been born and breed.

 

Gratius Falsius, an ancient Roman author and historian, wrote of these frightful canines in the 8 AD.......

 

They were physically unspectacular, but renowned and feared on the battlefield. The Roman Molossians were no match. Gratius writes, "Although the British dogs are distinguished neither by color nor good anatomy, I could not find any particular faults with them. When grim work must be done, when special pluck is needed, when Mars summons us to battle most extreme, then the powerful Molossus will please you less and the Athamanen dog cannot measure up to the skill of the British dog either. "

 

Seeing first hand their effectiveness in battle, the Romans quickly began employing these dogs in the Empire's service. They were set loose across the ancient world - trained, ravenous, and fiercely loyal.

 

HERE'S a nice article on dogs of war.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Gaius Octavius]

GPM, is the author implying that the opposing Brit and Roman dogs fought each other?