| Rottsville,
You bring up some very interesting points, and certainly some that must be taken into consideration. However, if you haven't, please read this thread from the beginning. Hype is part of the culture of the Rott that we are looking for. Oral history, mythology, etc., are all part of the known or unknown which make up our modern-day breed.
While you are correct about the fact that the breed could have changed, there is little evidence to support that the Romans did not have a selective breeding program in place. In fact, if they did not have a selective breeding program in place, it would have gone very much against their way of life and mentality. The Romans were interested in building a world empire, and in every facet of that empire, they wanted to make everything Roman. Roman writing do prove that there were two breeds of dogs in Rome at the B.C./A.D. juncture -- one white one for herding and one black one for guarding. It is possible that both of these dogs went with them on their campaigns; however, we do know that the black dog was with them in the A.D. 74 campaign that ended in Germany.
There is little refutation in the fact that dog's change over a period of time, both in appearance and in temperament. However, I believe that the Romans were interested in maintaining the perfect "Roman" dog, as it fitted with their natural tendancy to Romanize everything. After the fall of Rome, the Germans, left with the dogs, were left with a hard working dog that they, too, wanted to keep pure because of its benefit to them. Possibly, the weakest link in the Rottie puzzle was the turn of the 20th century when the breed was almost extinct.  |