Molossians - \'Roman War Dogs\'?

[Anonymous]

Well, there is other evidence from the region for dogs in battle - the black-figure sarcophagus from Klazomenai that shows barbarian horsemen accompanied by dogs attacking a Greek phalanx, for instance. It may be no more than that some aristocrats rode to battle accompanied by their favourite hunting-dogs, of course. <p></p><i></i>

[Primitivus]

How would dogs be used?<br>
I find it hard to believe them useful in battle against a formation. I think that any dog against a single well armed and cool man doesn't really stand much of a chance. Against an armored man, two or more dogs are instead deadly. A dog against an unarmed man is another story!

Dogs could be useful in WAR in hunting down a broken group of enemy, or during scouting (great noses and sense of pack, hence dogs would be excellent for making sure there wasn't any enemy hiding in the near-abouts). But then scouting dogs wouldn't need to be huge and ferocious. Any ideas or comments?

I think you have struck at the heart of the matter here. Against formations, war dogs would be of minimal value. However, against enemies who fought individually, they could be quite effective. Especially vicious, battle-hardened animals.

[Primitivus]

I suspect that the presence of war dogs in Roman military forces was not [size=75:3o54f8l6](1) [/size]ranks of battle-trained beasts, but [size=75:3o54f8l6](2) [/size]more like the individual/occasional companions to the soldiers/officers. It would probably be something more like what is portrayed in the movie Gladiator, where his personal dog engages in combat. Thus, it would be exceptional, rather than standard, in terms of presence. However, a barbarian warrior having to fend off the attack of a wild canine would quite likely be less conscious of his human adversary's attack... and correspondingly more vulnerable.

And, yes, the image of ranks of canine Roman warriors is more suited to computer games than it is to history!

[Felix]

Long afterwards, and across the Atlantic, the Spanish did use "war dogs" in subduing the Indians of the Caribbean. Of course, these poor folk were unarmoured and didn't fight in formation, (as well as using Stone Age technology, etc.); I suspect the role of the dogs was as much chasing down the locals as any actual combat.

[hoplite14gr]

The only thing I can accept about war dogs is they were possibly used in support service tracking or guarding lke it is done today.
Well in my opinion "war" dogs can assist an infantry unit resist cavalry.
A good number of them would disrupt the horsemen but only if used with something else. I do not think that they would tackle formed infantry or catafracts by themselves. If I trust some images of wardogs of "Rennesance" time, that I have seen then I feel that would possibly be used against hapless peasant levies.
Kind regards

[tlclark]

How would dogs be used?<br>
I find it hard to believe them useful in battle against a formation. I think that any dog against a single well armed and cool man doesn't really stand much of a chance. Against an armored man, two or more dogs are instead deadly. A dog against an unarmed man is another story!

Dogs could be useful in WAR in hunting down a broken group of enemy, or during scouting (great noses and sense of pack, hence dogs would be excellent for making sure there wasn't any enemy hiding in the near-abouts). But then scouting dogs wouldn't need to be huge and ferocious. Any ideas or comments?

I think you have struck at the heart of the matter here. Against formations, war dogs would be of minimal value. However, against enemies who fought individually, they could be quite effective. Especially vicious, battle-hardened animals.

I think guard dogs and scout dogs, or even dogs to round up fleeing enemies is a no brainer - but all of those are controlled situations where you have a few dogs and a high ratio of handlers to dogs.

Large groups of dogs as skirmishers or front-line attack? I find that implausible. Any group of frothing mad dogs would be next to impossible to control and would be just as likely to attack each other and you!

The question becomes then, are dogs cheaper or more effective than mercenaries or auxillaries?

I mean, if you have cheap and smart humans available for canon fodder, why waste dogs? Auxillaries/mercenaries/slaves are not as likely to run and are easier to control.

[Tarbicus]

I vaguely know someone who is writing a book on this very subject. She is trawling the Earth looking for sources and references - be interesting to see what she comes up with ..... possibly in 10 years or so hock:

(Monkey, did you ever join RAT?)

[Primitivus]

I mean, if you have cheap and smart humans available for canon fodder, why waste dogs? Auxillaries/mercenaries/slaves are not as likely to run and are easier to control.

Well, I would actually consider a dog less likely to run than a slave. A mercenary..? Well, if victory is likely, and there will probably be booty--I'm the most loyal warrior you could find. However, if the tide turns against us and I think I can save my own skin by making a break for it... well then, you just might wish you had a faithful dog at your side in my place!

[tlclark]

I mean, if you have cheap and smart humans available for canon fodder, why waste dogs? Auxillaries/mercenaries/slaves are not as likely to run and are easier to control.

Well, I would actually consider a dog less likely to run than a slave. A mercenary..? Well, if victory is likely, and there will probably be booty--I'm the most loyal warrior you could find. However, if the tide turns against us and I think I can save my own skin by making a break for it... well then, you just might wish you had a faithful dog at your side in my place!

All true, but I was talking about rational control, not motivations. I've discovered that animals live in the present and have virtually no concept of consequences. Slaves, mercenaries, auxiliaries do.

You can work a slave harder than you can work a donkey, because at some point the donkey will just quit no matter how hard you beat it. The human mind is amazing and fear of reprisals and death for desertion can keep a mind fighting (and fighting the right people) much better than a dog's own instinct and training can.

In a melee situation, a dog is just another agitator and factor that is too hard to control. - IMO.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

You can work a slave harder than you can work a donkey, because at some point the donkey will just quit no matter how hard you beat it.

Dogs are very different to donkeys. Train them enough to go for horses and I think they'd die doing it. Alexander was supposed to have a Molossian, Peritas, who killed a lion and an elephant in matches (probably a myth).

I think references to dogs apply to hunting dogs, which in themselves could play a vital role in hunting for food. But training them as guards/sentries would be a smart thing to do given their keen senses, which we know happened in non-military contexts.

[Primitivus]

I think references to dogs apply to hunting dogs, which in themselves could play a vital role in hunting for food. But training them as guards/sentries would be a smart thing to do given their keen senses, which we know happened in non-military contexts.

I suspect the dogs in army camps were relatively few. Only the privileged would be able to maintain them. Some might be scavengers (especially around established camps), although some of these might also be "adopted" by the soldiers. Dogs would be natural "sentries," since they come to know quite readily who "belongs" and who is a stranger.

[FAVENTIANVS]

From: http://www.dip-alicante.es/cema/mastinn ... _napo.html

[Tarbicus]

I think I posted this last year on this very subject, but here it is again if I did, by a former professor of ancient history:

[url:2p4k1a2t]http://www.american-bulldog.com/molossus_myth.htm[/url]

THE MOLOSSUS MYTH & OTHER MASTIFF MALARKEY
A critical look at the ancient history of the bull breeds by Jan Libourel

Originally published in Bulldog Review Vol. 4, Iss. 2 (#14) Winter, 1993

In the AKC's Complete Dog Book, the breed history for the Mastiff states, "Caesar describes them in his account of invading Britain in 55 B.C., when they fought beside their masters against the Roman legions with such courage and power as to make a great impression." Yes, they made such a great impression that Caesar doesn't say anything at all about any dogs whatsoever in his account of his two invasions of Britain (De Bello Gallico IV 20-36, V 8-23)!

[Primitivus]

From: http://www.dip-alicante.es/cema/mastinn ... _napo.html

That huge beast looks as though he's got enough skin for two dogs his size!