Dogs.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

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?

 

That's the problem Cecil, it does seem apparent that the Romans did use dogs in battle but when and at what length we don't know. I've searched around and not really come up with anything apart from the quote from Pliny's natural histories but that concerns other nations, not Romans.

 

I'm sure they'll be something out there but as of yet I've still to find it.

[Nephele]

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?

 

That's the problem Cecil, it does seem apparent that the Romans did use dogs in battle but when and at what length we don't know. I've searched around and not really come up with anything apart from the quote from Pliny's natural histories but that concerns other nations, not Romans.

 

I'm sure they'll be something out there but as of yet I've still to find it.

 

Haha, GPM, I had already beat you to that Pliny quote. Check out the second posting in this thread. Perhaps there's something else out there but, like you, I've been unable to find it.

 

And I think we must also bear in mind that Pliny's account of the foreign armies using "dog soldiers" was most likely something he'd heard second-hand, and I doubt that the account is reliable. Don't forget, Pliny also wrote about folks in the near east breeding dogs with tigers (!) to produce an especially fearsome breed. And, of course, we know that dogs and tigers cannot interbreed.

 

-- Nephele

[Gaius Octavius]

Though actually , I misbegot something:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?autoco...si&img=1238

 

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Haha, GPM, I had already beat you to that Pliny quote. Check out the second posting in this thread.

 

Bugger!

[Antiochus III]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

-- Nephele

 

hmmm... okay. well,rotweilers are by nature on of the most aggresive breeds of dogs, and training by humans has very little to do with how aggressive it it. its all in the breeding that has gone on for milennia. theyve taken hte most vicious and brutal dogs and bred them forming a subspecies of crazy attack dogs. therefore, they instinctively are crazy attack fiends hellbent on massacring the entire human race.

 

Antiochus III

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

-- Nephele

 

hmmm... okay. well,rotweilers are by nature on of the most aggresive breeds of dogs, and training by humans has very little to do with how aggressive it it. its all in the breeding that has gone on for milennia. theyve taken hte most vicious and brutal dogs and bred them forming a subspecies of crazy attack dogs. therefore, they instinctively are crazy attack fiends hellbent on massacring the entire human race.

 

Antiochus III

Salve, Amici

 

I have to agree with lady N on this one; I have met some gentle Rottweilers (and Akitas, Dobermans, Alsacians and from any other of the so-called working breeds). BTW, you can train a terrier or a pekinese to become all the agressive you want them to be. Among healthy dogs, agressiveness is mainly in the training.

 

Obviously, for defense training you would prefer a big, strong and intelligent specimen from a working breed, not a Chihuahua or a Poodle. That's what make those dogs so dangerous.

[Nephele]

hmmm... okay. well,rotweilers are by nature on of the most aggresive breeds of dogs, and training by humans has very little to do with how aggressive it it. its all in the breeding that has gone on for milennia. theyve taken hte most vicious and brutal dogs and bred them forming a subspecies of crazy attack dogs. therefore, they instinctively are crazy attack fiends hellbent on massacring the entire human race.

 

Antiochus III

Salve, Amici

 

I have to agree with lady N on this one; I have met some gentle Rottweilers (and Akitas, Dobermans, Alsacians and from any other of the so-called working breeds). BTW, you can train a terrier or a pekinese to become all the agressive you want them to be. Among healthy dogs, agressiveness is mainly in the training.

 

Obviously, for defense training you would prefer a big, strong and intelligent specimen from a working breed, not a Chihuahua or a Poodle. That's what make those dogs so dangerous.

 

Baloney, Antiochus.

 

And, thank you, Asclepiades. I couldn't have said it better.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

 

Here is a breif review on the use of mastiffs and lebrels by Spanish conquerors against amerindians over the XV and XVI centuries.

 

Of course, amerindians were almost naked and used neolithic weapons, little more than sticks and stones; even so, it's clear spanish dogs were no substitute for european and allied soldiers, but mostly complementary to them for what we may call anti-guerrilla warfare.

[Kosmo]

Dogs were not only useful against this light opponents but maybe as the linked source claims thay could easily tell apart the enemy because it was very different from the masters. So using them against other spaniards would have been difficult because it was confusing (not that I imagine dogs charging a tercio!) who is who. In a place where the fight was indians against europeans they could tell combatants apart.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Dogs were not only useful against this light opponents but maybe as the linked source claims thay could easily tell apart the enemy because it was very different from the masters. So using them against other spaniards would have been difficult because it was confusing (not that I imagine dogs charging a tercio!) who is who. In a place where the fight was indians against europeans they could tell combatants apart.

 

Salve, K

 

Obvious problem would have been that "spanish" conqueror's armies tended to have an overwhelming majority of indian allies.

Edited May 27, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

And before the spanish turned up with their horses (and dogs apparently), the amerindians were using dogs as draft animals.

[Kosmo]

Dogs were not only useful against this light opponents but maybe as the linked source claims thay could easily tell apart the enemy because it was very different from the masters. So using them against other spaniards would have been difficult because it was confusing (not that I imagine dogs charging a tercio!) who is who. In a place where the fight was indians against europeans they could tell combatants apart.

 

Salve, K

 

Obvious problem would have been that "spanish" conqueror's armies tended to have an overwhelming majority of indian allies.

 

Salve, A

You have a point here.

[ASCLEPIADES]

And before the spanish turned up with their horses (and dogs apparently), the amerindians were using dogs as draft animals.

Salve, C.

 

As far as I know, only North American breeds like the Canadian Eskimo and the Native American Indian Dogs were suitable for drafting purposes. Mesoamerican and South American breeds were mostly on the other side of the size scale, like the Xoloitzcuintli, the Al'co Calato or the Techichi (Chihuahua's ancestor).

[ASCLEPIADES]

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

Salve, Amici

 

Regarding the original question of this thread, I think the quotation from Gmanicus on Post#3 has considerable negative signifance, given the exhaustive Plinian review methodology; ie, if Caius Plinius Secundus Maior didn't say so, it's probably because it didn't happen.

 

Capitis LXI Liber VIII of Naturalis Historia (circa DCCCXXX AUC / AD 77) specifically refered the bellic use of canines by other nations (Garamantes in Lybia, Colophon in Ionia and Castabala in Cilicia) clearly as extraordinary facts; and then he refered other extraordinary (but non-bellic) achievements by Roman canines.

 

BTW, I havent't been able so far to find any independent confirmation on those notorious Colophonii itemque Castabalenses cohortes canum.

[Maty]

Those with an Athens account, or simply a good local library might like to look at this article

 

Dogs in Ancient Warfare

E. S. Forster

Greece & Rome, Vol. 10, No. 30 (May, 1941), pp. 114-117

 

To summarize briefly, there is no mention of Roman war dogs (they are useless in Rome Total War [the computer game] as well ...) but the following are given as confirmed uses.

 

Alyattes King of Lydia (600 BC) used war dogs.

Xerxes used Indian hounds (Herod 7.187)

One of the Athenians went into the battle of Marathon plus faithful hound.

The Colophonians have been covered already

 

And there are a lot of references to watch dogs and tracking dogs, but even the British dogs are not mentioned.