History of the Rottie

[babydungeon]

what types of books have you looked in? rottweiler handbooks only give basic info so it seems like you'd have to read the roman history books themselves to find something. or maybe start calling historians. of course i am interested in this also, i just have a lot going on right now and don't have the time to go deep. i appreciate your effort to uncover the rott's mystery of true origin and doing OUR dirty work for us.:D i agree, it is something we all need to know. if i do stumble on something though, i will let you know. -kevin

[mark_sherry]

I've contacted several of my world history professor's from college and have asked them to do some research for me, and they have passed on my questions to some classical scholars as well. Much of my material has come from the Internet too, but most of those sites say the same things.

A burgeoning part of academics is the folk story because it is really oral history, so I'm also doing some research from that standpoint, although I haven't made much progress there. There have been some allusions to strong, rugged dogs that resemble the Rottweiler in various Roman poems and orations, but there's not much detail.

I'll keep searching and searching and will probably have to draw my own conclusions based upon the evidence. One of my professors knows someone at the Smithsonian who may have some more information to add. I'll certainly keep everyone posted as the information becomes available -- if it comes available.

[Judi W]

I'm going to enter in here a bit on the different characteristics required for different jobs. The Rottweiler was never a flock guardian breed. The herding breeds and the flock guardian breeds require completely different characteristics from one another. Herding breeds have a fairly highly developed but controlled prey drive. The are bred for that as well as their ability and propensity to follow instructions with human partners, which requires that they have the bonding to humans.

Flock guardians on the other hand, must have no prey drive, and are very independent of humans without the same social needs that the herding and working breeds have. The flock guardian lives with the stock. It is highly suspicious of any outsider, human or beast. It is the lack of prey drive and social need that allows them to live peacefully with flocks for months on end without chasing or eating them or going in search of human companionship. Some of the flock guardian breeds are a bit more social than others, but as a rule they are not. Some of the flock guardians are the Anatolians, the Kuvaz, Komodor, etc. Yes, most of them are white as they then blend in with their stock.

So, yes, the Rottweiler is the original herding dog, but it is not a flock guardian.

Regarding the tail docking. Another story that makes more sense to me, is that the pleasure dogs were taxed and the dogs that were used to help earn a living were not. The tax was placed on tails to differentiate between the two. Hence the docked tail signified that this dog was used in someone's livelihood and was not taxed.

Cattle by the way, to not bite in defense, not even tails. They hook with their horns or stomp and charge, but do not use their teeth in defense. They use their teeth for munching food only. You can tell those hard working little cow dogs because they've usually gotten a few teeth knocked out by some well-placed kicks. Even if they did bite, do you think the dog was going to turn its back and be bitten on the tail??? I don't think so. :D I haven't seen a herding dog yet that turned its back on stock. They'd be fired on the spot.

In regards to the guardian breeds, I just helped place two that were fired for leaving their flocks. They've been easily and quickly placed as pets, but they no longer have a job keeping off the feral dogs and coyotes. They worked well for several years and then went walk about and were fired.

Well, my two cents to the discussion.

[mark_sherry]

Judy,

Thank you for your input. As to your comparison of guarding breeds and herding breeds, I must admit that you are 100% correct about that. However, we must look at this in historical context. While modern day herdsmen may use specialist for herding and guarding their flocks, the Roman armies did not have that luxury. They utilized one breed of dog that could provide all functions for them. Now, one question that could be asked is, how much did this dog herd or how much did it guard? In other words, I have documents that show each legion carried with it over 100 herdsmen. Did the herdsmen herd the cattle while the dogs helped protect them?

As well, these same dogs were most known for guarding the Roman camps at night, especially the supply depots and prisoners. This allowed more soldiers to rest for the next days march. One story tells that the modern day equivalent to the payroll master would attach bags of Roman gold coins around specially trained dogs' necks to keep the enemy, locals, and, yes, even the Roman soldiers from stealing them.

In regards to tail docking, I did make the point (perhaps in another thread) that it was logical that the tax law was the reason the Germans started to dock their dogs' tails. However, one should ask why a docked tail would exclude one from paying taxes. If a working dog had to have its tail docked because it had a greater risk of suffering injury, then the owners would obviously dock its tail rather than risk it getting infected from being scraped, cut, and stepped on (while being dragged through cow dung). Therefore, a dog with a docked tail, at that time, was an essential dog -- a working dog -- therefore, not to be taxed. People who didn't have a working dog began to dock their dogs' tails "en masse" at that point in order to avoid paying the high tax for their dogs.

Now, back to the Roman question. There is no proof that the Romans carried with them more than one breed of dog, and we do know that this dog was required to provide the Roman Legion with a variety of tasks, most notably, guarding tasks. There are those who assert their only task was herding, but this is contrary to historical evidence. And what we're left with is the question as to what breed of dog this was. Was it the Rottweiler as we know it today, or was it something closer to the Neopolitan Mastiff, as some believe?

[Judi W]

I don't disagree other than with the concept of the Rottweiler as a flock guardian which perhaps is not what was truly intended earlier. (well that and the idea that the cattle bit the dogs' tails) Working with the soldiers and herding and guarding the camp and the stock fits quite well with the herding/guarding breed. This was a partnership with the humans and would utilize the same characteristics that we see today.

[mark_sherry]

Judi,

Did I ever say that the cattle bit the dogs' tails? I'm sorry if I did because, if I did, it was certainly a mistake. I was a bit confused when you alluded to that in your last post, but I didn't address it because I thought you were just talking in general about docking tails. No, cattle don't bite dogs' tails. I must agree with you wholeheartedly there. I've walked through many a cow pasture and have never been bitten by a cow! :D

I poured over some research that I've found regarding the issue with them as a flock guardian. I certainly won't refute your assertation either. Your point is very legitimate and has very strong merits.

I believe that I could argue a thesis that the Rottweiler as we know it today is very closely related to the dog the Romans had. When I say "very" closely, I mean, almost identical with minor exceptions. I also believe that I could argue that this dog was used much more for its guarding duties than anything else. Refer to my points about prisoners, camps, depots, and coins. In regards to the flock, one issue that I can bring up in regards to guardianship is that the Romans were as much or more concerned with protecting the flock at night from locals who lived in the region that they were camped at. In this situation, the guarding Rottweiler would be serving in the same capacity as the camp guardian or money guardian. In turn, it wouldn't be the same as the traditional "flock" guardian who lives with the flock and keeps predators away.

I can tell by your posts that you are very knowledgeable about the history of the breed as well; therefore, I hope that you do not mind our friendly debate. I see it as a search for knowledge, and I see it as necessary when so many pieces of the puzzle are missing.

[babydungeon]

http://animal.discovery.com/guides/d...le.jsp?id=2490

try this link. it's from the discovery/animal planet web site. it might add something small or nothing at all.-kevin

[mark_sherry]

Kevin,

Thanks for the link. One thing made me think as I read through it. The word "drover dog" has been something that I have been just overlooking in the past as just another catch-all word; however, I think I've made a connection that could be interesting.

Drover dogs, as I understand it (in ancient times) were referred to dogs that drove cattle. The Romans considered a good working dog one that would actually "tackle," for lack of a better word, the alpha bull. In other words, seek it out, and dominate it. Dogs like this were then taken from their herding duties (guarding duties as well) and placed into training for combat purposes. One of the things I've read relates that some of the Roman dogs were used to bite and attack horses used by their enemy's cavalry. Could this be the best drovers of their pack? I don't know.

I also found a German site that stated the Rottweiler was the original Roman dog, and that the Neopolitan Mastiff is a descendant of the Rottweiler. It also stated that the Romans bred Rottweilers to be black in order to make them difficult to see in the dark.

[Judi W]

There are extant writings by the Roman Columella from BC. He wrote advice to farmers, etc. and he has a description of the ideal farm dog. I have it somewhere and will scare it up when I have more time and post it here. It very much describes what could be a Rottweiler type dog. You will find it interesting. Also, there are some mosaics in Hurculenium that show a large black dog chained outside a home with the printing "Cave Canum"....... The dog on that mosaic is a large black dog, but does not resemble the Rottweiler other than being black. A copy of that can be found in a book on Hurculenium.

I don't remember who said the cattle bit the dogs' tails. I usually respond to the entire thread not just individual posts so it could have been posted by anyone. My original response was to the thread not an individual's post.

[mark_sherry]

Judy,

Yes! If you do find the source of the extant writings, please pass them along! I look forward to reading them.

If so, it would corroborate a couple of things. Archaeologists have said that there was possibly only one breed of dog in Rome at the time. If the description were similar to the Rottweiler of today, then it could help us come closer to proving that it was the Rottweiler that the Romans used in their conquest of the world.

I've read much about the Mastiff and its origins, but many sources indicate that the Romans did not discover the Mastiff until they discovered the British Isles. This would have been long after they domesticated and trained the Rottweiler for farm, military, guard, and colloseum duty.

Mark

[KRISSIE]

Hi i have heard many Theories as to where the Rottweiler originated from, most lead me back to the mastiff or Neoplotin mastiff. I have read one theory in the book "The Rottweiler handbok" that I found to be a little interesting. (The Rottweiler Handbook, Canine Influences, page 4) " Exactly what canine influences may have entered the picture over the next 1,000 years in developing or transforming the Roman's cattle herding or guarding dogs into todays Rottweiler is a subject of much debate. One therory is that the Swiss cattle herding dogs, such as the Bernese Mountain dog, had an influence on the developing breed. this is not without possibility , given the location and later importance of Rottweil as a trade center for cattle, as well as it's close association with Switzerland. Another theory is that a breed of dog originatiing in Belgium, the Brabanter Bullenbeisser, may have had some infleunce on the delevelopment of the Rottweiler during the middle ages. The Branbanter Bullenbeisser which is now extinct, had been been used in Germany to hunt wild boar". <>

I found this theory about the Bullenbeisser to be interesting, so I pulled up some pics of what this dog suppossibly looked like, It turns out that the Boxer is a decendent of this dog, here is a drawn pic of the german Bullenbeisser:

http://clubs.akc.org/abc/boxer_histo.../bulltypes.htm

Interesting theory, but I don't know how true it is...

[mark_sherry]

Krissie,

Very interesting theories regarding the Rottweilers descent from the mastiff or Bernese Mountain Dog, as well as the Bullenbeisser. As for the mastiff and the Bernese Mountain Dog, I feel like I can comfortably say that scholars may be able to prove that the Romans (circa 74 a.d.) did not have knowledge of the mastiff breed yet on a widespread basis. Many scholars believe that the English Mastiff was taken from the British Isles and used sparingly in the Colliseum where they battled many of the Roman's top fighting dogs. The question then is what were these Roman fighting dogs. I believe that the Roman Empire's growth did spread the mastiff throughout Europe, but I'm not sure that the Rottweiler is a descendant of the mastiff in that regard. My theory is that the Rottweiler was the Roman's fighting dog, and it was the dog they took with them over the Alps and into Germany during the A.D. 74 campaign against the German tribes. If that is the case, then the Belgian Brabanter Bullenbeisser could be a descendent of a cross between the Rottie and a local Belgian breed.

All in all, there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that the Rottweiler was an established Roman breed during their empire. Unfortunately, we have little to go on and can only draw theories and conclusions. I really apprciate your comments, and I think they go a long way towards helping solve this puzzle. I welcome your comments about my reply as well.

Thanks -- Mark

[TrishB]

One thing that I haven't seen posted here yet is Julius Ceasar's influence on Rotties. :D Julius Ceasar was the first Ceasar to decide that the Roman armies should have fresh meat while on the march.

In order to do so, they required a dog that could drive the cattle by day and protect the sleeping army at night. They would also need to be used in battle.

It was that decision that found the decendants of today's Rottweiler! Their compact size gave them strength and stamina, their ability to drive cattle were superior and their protective instincts were unsurpassed.

So don't just say the Roman's; say Julius Ceasar himself! ;)

[Nancy Estes]

The Rottweiler is generally agreed to be one of the Mastiff-type breeds. Here's more info:

http://people.unt.edu/~tlt0002/mastiff.htm

"Did the ancestral mastiff come from Assyria and Mesopotamia, which is so often referred to as the cradle of civilization? Paul Strang, a cynologist and a noted authority on the Great Pyrenees, observes in his book The Complete Great Pyrenees, that the existence of massive native breeds today in Turkey, Iran, and Southern Russia could support the theory that the ancestors of today's mastiff breeds came from the Middle East. Other serious cynologists, such as David and Judy Nelson, agree with that possibility. Experts on the Turkish native breeds, they have been involved in field observations and research in that area of the world for over twenty years. Their work in the eastern regions of Turkey (due north of ancient Nineveh, as the crow flies) has focused Western attention on the Kangal Dog, a native of the Sivas region of Turkey. "

And:

"However, some cynologists, such as Strang, have proposed that the roots of this ancient family may trace even further East, to Asia, and to the area where ancestors of the modern Tibetan Mastiff were found. This theory maintains that as ancient nomadic peoples moved westward, they brought with them their flocks and their guard dogs. Leighton simply states that the "Thibet" (sic) Mastiff is 'no doubt . . . depicted in the sculptures from the palace of Nimrod' but offers no further support as to why the relatively smooth-coated dogs depicted should be considered Tibetan Mastiffs. He does, however, cite a Chinese manuscript from 1121 BC which describes a dog sent from a western Chinese province to the Emperor Wou-wang. Leighton calls this dog 'a great dog of the Thibetan kind . . .four feet high, and trained to attack men of a strange race.'"

Nancy

[KRISSIE]

I definitely agree in that the Rottweiler is a decendent of the Mastifff, but what has made the Rottweiler what it is today, Ok selective breeding has maintaned the character of the breed as we know it to be today but where did these traits originate from? I was reading about the history and origins of the mastiff, :http://mastiff.org/faq/mhistory.mv
Now I was reading the tasks and personaliy traits of the mastiff's that where owned by the Roman's , and I do see a resemblence to the Rottweiler as we know it . Now the old english mastiff as we know it to be today does not sound like the same dogs the romans used, aside from size and appearence the old english mastiff today is a very gentle dog unlike the mastiffs described in the Roman days, therefore if you can breed traits out of a breed, can you also breed traits into a breed? Could the Rottweiler be one of the closest related dogs as described by the Romans to have been the Mastiff ??, this is of course based on the personalilty of the dogs described and the various tasks they had performed?
What's your thought on this??