Dogs.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

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

 

Quite possibly Cecil.

 

It seems that when the Romans invaded Britain they brought the Molossian hounds with them, but because Britain was then unconquered territory they were unaware that the Britons also used dogs in battle and it appears that the British Mastiffs were far superior than the Molossian hound, in which way I cant really tell, from what Gratius says it seems that they were braver and worked better, maybe the Molossian fought individually and the British mastiff fought as a pack, I don't really know.

 

Gratius Falsius' writings about dogs were mostly based on the dog fights that were staged in the arena as a warm up to the main event, so his statement is more than likely based on his observations in the arena and most probably not the battlefield.

 

Whether these dogs ever fought each other on the battlefield.......Who knows???

Edited May 16, 2008 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Nephele]

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.

 

GPM, that's a direct quote from the website that you posted -- and the author does not provide ancient sources for his statement that "The Roman Army had whole companies composed entirely of dogs." I'm sorry, but it sounds kind of absurd.

 

And the Gratius Falsius who is cited on that website actually wrote of exhibitions of dog-fighting in the Roman arena -- not of actual use of dogs on the battlefield.

 

EDIT: I just saw this in your second posting:

 

Gratius Falsius' writings about dogs were mostly based on the dog fights that were staged in the arena as a warm up to the main event, so his statement is more than likely based on his observations in the arena and most probably not the battlefield.

 

Whether these dogs ever fought each other on the battlefield.......Who knows???

 

Yep, who knows? Doesn't seem likely, though. Animals are unpredictable, and there's no telling whether a pack of frenzied, battle-stressed dogs, having been let off their leads, might turn and attack each other rather than the targeted enemy.

 

-- Nephele

[Nephele]

GPM, MAJOR apologies to you! I totally messed up my response to you and lost your last posting about the Cane Corso! Please forgive me. What a dolt I am!

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

GPM, MAJOR apologies to you! I totally messed up my response to you and lost your last posting about the Cane Corso! Please forgive me. What a dolt I am!

 

-- Nephele

 

Nephele it's lucky for you I don't live anywhere near New York because if I did then you'd be in for a damn good thrashing !!!!

 

Here it is again!!!!!

 

 

Neph, I totally agree, whole companies composed entirely of dogs is completely absurd, this is clearly an over exaggeration by the author of the site, he even goes on to say that "they wore spiked collars around their neck and ankles, made more dangerous by the large curved knives protruding from its ring."

 

It was a probably a mistake on my part to post the first section of the article because like you I wasn't convinced of the truth in it, it was the latter part of the article that I found interesting and although he doesn't supply any sources I found it quite believable.

 

Although the ancient sources are pretty scarce on this subject I don't think it's so totally ridiculous that dogs were used to some effect by the Romans when engaged in battle. As we all know, dogs are very clever animals and can be trained to perform numerous tasks, so I don't think that it's so unbelievable that a dog couldn't be trained to provide some kind of assistance during war. For instance I've read in another article that dogs were trained to target horses and therefore could be used quite effectively to upset and cause confusion within the cavalry ranks. This alone would be a massive help in itself.

 

On a lighter note I came across this while sniffing around for info. I't called the Roman Cane Corso ,apparently the Cane Corso is a large working dog who descends from the ancient Roman Molossus. Native to Italy they now represent a modern day continuation of war dogs that were sometimes pitted against lions and other wild beasts in ancient Roman arenas. These Molossian Mastiffs were in great demand as war dogs and household guardians for generations to come.

 

 

The website has lots of pictures and videos of cute puppies too!

[Nephele]

Nephele it's lucky for you I don't live anywhere near New York because if I did then you'd be in for a damn good thrashing !!!!

 

Hahahahaha! Thanks for fixing it, GPM!

 

I'm blaming your "sniffing around" pun for getting me all distracted!

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

I really don't see the effectiveness of canines against armed and armored opponents. Using dogs to track down runaway slaves or the occasional bandit might be feasible, but not regular military units.

[caldrail]

I wouldn't dismiss them entirely. You're there, nervous, waiting to fight, and a dozen men handling big heavy angry dogs loose their hounds at you. Those dogs are running at you, full of bared teeth and snarls, and dogs that want to be violent don't mess around. A big heavy dog intent on savaging you doesn't suffer the same morale problems as we do - it just goes at you.

 

I understand what you mean - shields, greaves, weaponry - and to some extent if a formation keeps its nerve then the dogs will be defeated, largely because they become too focused on the one guy they're ripping into. But.... Wouldn't you be a little more nervous if a dozen snarling rottweillers ran toward you full pelt?

[Nephele]

But.... Wouldn't you be a little more nervous if a dozen snarling rottweillers ran toward you full pelt?

 

I know I would! But there's no knowing that the "dozen snarling rottweilers" would optimally behave that way, regardless of training. Even dogs in modern-day miltary and police work don't always get along with each other and, in my years of dog rescue work, I've firsthand witnessed pack dynamics to know that dogs do not always behave as a pack at their owner's behest.

 

I would still want to read some account by an ancient writer who had actually "been there, done that, seen that," before I'd be willing to accept that dogs were regularly used in the Roman army.

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

But.... Wouldn't you be a little more nervous if a dozen snarling rottweillers ran toward you full pelt?

 

Sure ... at first. But if an army can become used to Hellenistic elephant packs charging at them, they can get used to dogs.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

But.... Wouldn't you be a little more nervous if a dozen snarling rottweillers ran toward you full pelt?

 

Sure ... at first. But if an army can become used to Hellenistic elephant packs charging at them, they can get used to dogs.

 

We're not saying that the dogs are going to win the battle or anything like that, just that the dogs would be another tool used by the Romans to disrupte the enemy's charge and for a short while cause confusion in thier ranks enabling the Romans to maybe gain the upper hand, or like I said in an earlier post, the dogs could be concentrated on targeting the cavalry, how many dogs do you know that given the chance would love nothing more than to chase a horse around and harrass it all day long, now if these dogs have been starved to the point of madness and then pointed towards horses or other warriors then these animals will be a formidable weapon, maybe only for a short time until enemy regroups and gets wise to the situation but for those few moments the dogs will have served thier purpose.

 

I'm just speculating here but does it really seem that ridiculous??

 

But like Nephele say's I too would be interested in reading a first hand account.

[Kosmo]

I would still want to read some account by an ancient writer who had actually "been there, done that, seen that," before I'd be willing to accept that dogs were regularly used in the Roman army.

 

-- Nephele

 

You don't need that. We have descriptions of dog use in modern warfare and the difference should be small. They could chase amercian natives or slaves but coud not be used on a battlefield.

[Nephele]

I would still want to read some account by an ancient writer who had actually "been there, done that, seen that," before I'd be willing to accept that dogs were regularly used in the Roman army.

 

-- Nephele

 

You don't need that. We have descriptions of dog use in modern warfare and the difference should be small. They could chase amercian natives or slaves but coud not be used on a battlefield.

 

Which was the point I was making, thank you. Dogs aren't soldiers and, not being such, would be useless as "dog troops" -- because a loose and frenzied pack urged to attack people on a battlefield would be just as likely to turn on the handler's comrades, as on the enemy soldiers. Dogs can't tell the difference between army uniforms. And that's beside the fact that (as I stated previously) dogs quite often don't get along with each other -- particularly the "fighting" breeds -- to operate as a predictable pack at their owner's behest.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Taken from the Eigth book of Pliny's Natural Histories....

 

Chap XL, Of Dogges

 

There was a king of the Garamants exiled, and recovered his royall state againe by the meanes of 200 dogs that fought for him and against all those that made resistance, and brought him home maugre his enemies. The Colophonians and Castabaleans, maintained certaine squadrons of mastive dogges, for their warre-service: and those were put in the vaward to make head and front of the battaile, and were never known to draw backe and refuse fight. These were their trustiest auxiliaries and aid-souldiers, and never so needie as to call for pay. In a battell when the Cimbrians were defeated and put all to the sword, their dogges defended the baggage, yea, and their houses (such as they were) carried ordinarily upon charriots.

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html

 

[Ursus]

I'm just speculating here but does it really seem that ridiculous??

 

 

Well, actually, yes, but I honestly don't care enough about the topic to argue the point further.

[Gaius Octavius]

Unless I am missing something here, it seems that the Romans were using dogs to attack their enemies quite often. Therefore, can someone cite a couple of recorded battles in which they fought?