History of the Rottie

[laraque27]

mark,

The more I read on this subject, the more I am convinced that the Original Rotts were more mastiff-like and Mastiff-size. That suit of armor story is true and if you see it, it will show you that it was one BIG dog that wore that outfit. makes you wonder why they shrunk the dog to what it is today. Just my thoughts...

[mark_sherry]

I've done a lot of private study since my last posts, and I have been in a constant communication with Dr. Herrmann of the ADRK about the history of the Rottweiler. It has been a fascinating conversation, and I have learned so much from him.

The early Rottweiler (Roman times) is a misnomer because it's so difficult to trace the dog that far in history accurately. All of the talk about this era has been guess-work, which I plainly stated from the beginning. We can only make assumptions about the "race" of dogs at that time. I can tell you that you are probably right about the Roman dogs being more or less mastiff in type during the height of the Roman Empire. We do know that there were two types of dogs favored by the Romans: one was a very large dog used to fight in the amphitheatre. The other was an estate dog used to protect property and to herd cattle. This dog was black and medium-sized; however, no connection can be readily made between this dog and a modern-day Rottweiler. What it can be, however, is a link with our Rottweiler to its earliest ancestors. It is this dog that went with the Romans to southern Germany. From there, many things happened over the course of the next 1,000 years that began to shape the race of dogs that became known as the "butchers dog of Rottweil." This is the very interesting part of the history of the dog of Rottweil, and is very, very complex. Dr. Herrmann has put me in touch with some of the very best historians in Germany on the subject, and they have some very interesting tidbits of information that has never been documented in an English book other than a hint here or a hint there. Much of the informatin he has given me is written in German, and the translation of these documents is very time consuming. Needless to say, I'm improving my German every day.

In regards to the suits of armour, I would have to look at the suit that you're referring to. Suits of armour from Roman dogs would be big because they would have been fit for the mastiff dogs used in gladiator sports. The dogs accompanying the Legion did not wear armour for whatever reason, and if they did, it was for dress and symbolism, used to display the wealth of the dog's owner. Much like a diamond-studded collar for the cosmopolitan poodle of today. The Spartans used armour for their war dogs as is depicted in two very famous paintings by Greek artists; however, their dogs were also mastiff-type dogs. In the Dark Ages, we see a lot of armour used for dogs all over Europe. This is when you start to see a large variation in the sizes and types of armour that were used. However, it's difficult to tell what the armour was used for. Some were used for protection in combat, while others donned armour to help protect them from the tusks of boars during a hunt.

One thing that Dr. Herrmann always says is that we'll never know all of the facts or details in regards to the early Rottweiler-type dog; however, it's probably not a situation where one person is right or another person is wrong. The truth is that, since dogs were used for multiple working purposes back then, they probably performed many tasks that we do not give them credit for. Some of these early dogs of Rottweil may indeed be identical looking to our modern-day Rottweiler, while others may not because of the duties their owners bred them for. Certainly, it's an error to even mention a Rottweiler breed back then because breeds of dogs were rare. We have to look at it from the context of region and function rather than breed. If we get caught up in breed, then we can never understand the ancestors that existed before the dogs of the 20th Century because our perception is, "if it doesn't look like our Rottweiler, then it's not a Rottweiler." And to SOME degree, this is not true. But that's where I'm currently at with my dialogue with the historians of Rottweil and Dr. Herrmann, and until I fully understand everything they're saying to me, I don't feel like I can explain what I mean by this statement clearly and concisely. But hopefully soon, I will be at a point where it makes enough sense to me to where I can share their ideas with you about it.

By the way, German is a pain-in-the-rear-end to translate! Oh, not necessarily the German that I took in college, but the old German and the colloquial dialects from the Middle Ages through the early 20th Century. I mention this because I think that's why many scholars simply don't pay attention to the breed's history. It's hard enough to research something when it's easy to understand what you read, but it's a different ball of wax when it takes a week or more to translate or have someone else translate something as small as an edict from the mayor of Rottweil!

Mark

[ROTTSVILLE]

MARK, your conclusion has matured nicely.

And your determined research has paid dividends.

You have a much more realistic outlook now, and one which i personally find far more paletable.

You have refined your theory, with th assistance of many German experts in this field, and taken on board there considerable wealth of knowlege.

This shows you have a open mind, and are prepared to listen.

However the previous posts from various other individuals, who all but insisted that the Romans had Rotts just like ours, seem to have gone rather quiet, all of a sudden.

Your theory has evolve and moved on.
Has theirs????

But well done Mark, keep up the good work !!

[mark_sherry]

Rottsville,

Thank you for your words. Yes, I do keep an open mind, and it is exciting to see a journey progress. The problem with an open forum is that it's an outward display of the thinking method. When I wrote my MA thesis, it took me a year to come up with the topic and argument that I would make. From start to finish, my conclusions changed depending upon the research "finds" that I may have made or from discussions with my thesis director. Had my thinking process been in the open, I'm sure that the final product wouldn't have looked so impressive. An open process, though, gives everyone the opportunity to chime in, and in this case, it drove me to ask for the assistance of the true experts on the subjectv -- people who actually have primary documents of value in their library.

Well, anyway, I'm never one to be ashamed to change my opinion on something as long as I find the facts to back it up. The true shame would be to ignore new finds and to continue to make an argument just out of pure stubborness. I find this a lot in our world, and it does nothing to better the breed or to better understand the breed.

Like Dr. Herrmann said, everyone has a right to believe what they do, and it may be that there is a little truth in every argument on this thread. Unfortunately, the period between the Roman conquest of Southern Germany and the Middle Ages provides us with little information. It was the Dark Ages, and we just don't know enough about it to draw conclusive arguments based upon hard facts. We do, though, begin to see some info appearing from 1000 A.D. and on, and this is where I'm focusing the remainder of my study on.

Mark