History of the Rottie

[Roscoe's dad]

Nancy is right, thats why I posted another link under here is another opinion. :D As long as someone does not post that Rotts are from chihuahas Im happy!

[KRISSIE]

I still feel that the Rottweiler is a descendent of the Mastiff, now that is not to say that other breeds didn't also contribute to the breed as we know it today, most likely the Rottweiler comes from a long line of several breeds, i think that what we are trying to figure is which breed is the Rottweiler most closely related to??

(The Rottweiler Handbook, by Joan Hustace Walker, page 5-6)
Loss of work for the rottweiler, paragraph 2: With no job, the working Rottweiler reportedly nearly became extinct by the end of the nineteenth century. Fortunatly, at this same time , German breeders showed renewed interest in the breed and organized an International Club for Leonberger and Rottweiler dogs. A breed standard was written in 1883 by Albert Kull and pulished by the club in 1901.
The first standard: Interesestingly, the first Rottweiler standard shows that the breed had much more variation that it would even 20 years later. It included the color scheme of today( black with rust to mahogany markings) but also included brindle on gray with fawn markings, red fawn with a black nose with fawn markings, and a dark grey with a black saddle and heads with fawn markings. The standard also noted that some white ( chest and legs) were allowable and occured frequently.
The first clubs: The first club exclusively for rottweiler's, the Deutsche Rottweiler club was formed in 1907, shortly after the Leonberger and rottweiler club failed. Between 1907 and 1921 two more clubs would be formed : the South German rottweiler club( irc), which later absorbed the South german rottwieler club. A breed standard published in 1913 by the IRC no longer reconized the brindle variation or gray wolf coloring, but did include black and brown with the classic Rottweiler markings., as well as blue, and red with a black mask and line down the back. In 1921 the two clubs merged to form the Allegmeiner Duetscher Rottweiler Klub( ADRK), which is now Germany's Rottweiler club . at that time of the ADRK's formation, a NEW standard allowed only black coloration with the classic rust to mahogany markings. White markings on the chest and underside were allowed , but not desirable.<><>

There is no doubt that the color scheme of the Rottweilers of 1883 may not have resembled the Rottweiler as we know it today, but none the less it was still a Rottweiler and reconized as such..

[Roscoe's dad]

A rose by any other color is still a rose.:)

[mark_sherry]

OK,

Let me begin by stating that I am going to attempt to address all of you in one swoop, which isn't really fair because you all bring up some very important points. However, for the sake of time, I am going to try to narrow some critical points that need to be refocused.

When I started this thread, I did not pretend to ask for historical fact. Please read my original post. I did my Master's Thesis in English and Folklore, with my Bachelor's Degree in World History, so the subject of historical fact is interesting to me; however, so is the concept of the folklore behind the breed. The "stories" that evolve over time carry significant meaning regarding the cultures that use the dogs, and we can trace different stories about the Rottweiler through different time periods and juxtapose them with the current economic and political conditions of the time. That is something that I do not want to get into. My main purpose was to set upon a journey of discussing the myth, legend and history of the Rottweiler, allowing people to project their viewpoints unscathed. The concept of living in "reality" is bogus and fallable because this thread was not based upon sole historical fact. And history, much like our modern "history" is laced with various outlooks and viewpoints, so much to a degree that historians can no longer agree why the American Civil War began or why the U.S. actually dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

It is true that there is no way on this earth that we will know what dogs the Romans actually used, and it is likely that they did have many mixed breeds available to them. But what I can state as FACT, is that the Roman culture was a culture based upon pride of genetic purity -- to be pure Roman was the ideal. Everything the Romans did, everything they built, every civilization they conquered was turned upside down and rebuilt and turned into a Roman culture. It was not in the Roman mindset to allow cross breeding of what they would have considered their best animals. Now, that part, I know that I can't prove; however, it is a common hisorical practice to base a minor thing (such as a breed of dog) upon the persona of a culture.

Another fact that I know is that Roman writing absolutely supports that two types of known guard dogs were reported in Rome at the B.C./A.D. period. The writer, Columella, makes this distinction very apparent. In historical research, this is a primary source of information, and cannot be disputed. This also supports the theory that the Romans did keep these two breeds separated and did use them for separate purposes, as Columella reported. This is not fantasy; it is fact.

There will never be any right or wrong about this issue. One's opinion is as good as the others. My assertations are made based upon theories of Roman culture and a few fragmented pieces of primary sources from Roman writers and orators. As well, Roman historians and reenactors generally accept the Rottweiler as the dog of choice when showing the breed, and they are much more educated about Roman history than any of us dare to think.

[KRISSIE]

Originally posted by Roscoe's dad:

A rose by any other color is still a rose.

Exactly! ;)

[mark_sherry]

Please read through my posts. I never said the Rottweiler didn't descend from the mastiff. I said that historical evidence may have proven that the mastiff was brought over from Asia Minor and Eastern Europe during the Age of Greece. The concept of the Rottweiler's descent from the mastiff only changes with my theory with the time-frame. That would put the mastiff entering the western European continent much earlier than originally thought, and would explain why the Romans found mastiffs on the British Isles.

[Judi W]

Here is part of something I assembled some years ago. My reading at that time was not in search of dog stuff, but rather reading for interest in the era and local.

Cave Canem

(Columella wrote extensively on the management of estates and much of his work is extant) In approximately 50 AD, Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella wrote:

“A watchdog should be of ample bulk, preferable squarely built, with a prominent head and a loud and sonorous bark. Black is the desirable color. A black dog is more alarming to a thief if seen in daylight; at night the dog will not be easily visible.

What human being more clearly or so vociferously gives warning of the presence of a wild beast or of a thief as does the dog by its barking? What servant is more attached to his master than is a dog? What guardian more incorruptible? What more wakeful night-watchman can be found? Lastly, what more steadfast avenger or defender?”

Columella’s description sounds remarkable like the Rottweiler or a near type. The dogs of ancient Greece and Rome were highly valued as is evidenced in that most of the well-known writers of that time devoted some portion of their works to the selection and breeding of dogs and to the best ways of training them. That the dog was truly a member of the society in city life as well as the countryside and military is also attested to by the fact that in every large garden excavated in Pompeii there has been evidence of the dog. Wilhemina Jashemski, Professor of Ancient History, states in her book, “The Gardens of Pompeii” that an examination of the bones from these excavations indicates that all but one of the dogs were of a size recommended by Columella for watchdogs.

How marvelous to know that these probable ancestors of the Rottweiler were valued and had a place serving their masters in much the same manner that the Rottweiler does today.

[mark_sherry]

Judi,

You and I must go to the same library! Thank you for more eloquently describing what I was trying to say. My dx just changed my seizure meds, and I can't think clearly enough to say what I need to.

Mark

[KRISSIE]

Mark brings up a good point the Romans were much to paticular to go messing around with interbreeding, these people to some degree depended on their Mastiff like dogs for various tasks and held them with much value, , if they had these dogs to guard and herd their cattle on their marches then obviously there was a threat that their food supply was at risk and the Roman armies largely depended on these dogs, making them of great importance to the Romans, therefore maybe selective breeding did exist even then. Why would the Roman's mess with a good thing, these Mastiff like dogs had proven to be very dependable, what would have been their reason to crossbreed, none that I could think of.

[RottyMommy]

I spoke with my father last night and he said that he would gladly look into his store of information on the Roman Military and report back. He also said that he had a few friends that would be able to help and would probably enjoy this little project greatly.

A few things he did tell me that may (or may not) be of interest:

It was highly unlikely that the Romans would have had a dog as small as the modern Rottweiler. So if the original Roman Drover was not specifically a Mastiff or a Rottweiler, it would have more closely resembled the modern Mastiff than the modern Rottweiler.

It was very likely that the Romans kept and maintained a "breed standard" (for lack of a better term - I use this loosely). He stated that the Roman culture and in particular the Roman army was meticulous in certain things and this is something that they very likely would have maintained. If they had a breed/type of dog or dogs that they preferred they would have maintained the "integrity" of that dog and its characteristics. Any breeding with other dogs would have only been intentional.

It was unlikely that the dogs were used extensively in battle. (I believe Mark notes somewhere seeing photos of armor and that the dogs were possibly sent out as a first line of attack) He didn't go into detail - I don't think he had any at this point. I believe that he was simply basing his comments on his overall familiarity with Roman fighting methods/philosphies and culture.

He said however, that this is a great discussion and from his perspective, an interesting window through which to view/investigate ancient Roman culture and miltary.

I will report anything more he finds.

Keep up the great discussion. :)
Lynea

[mark_sherry]

Lynea,

Thank you for asking your father to join in this research. I look forward to hearing his point of view.

His original assumption that the Romans would have maintained integrity with a breed is very true to their cultural belief. They were very much against any kind of inbreeding, and since their dogs (as pointed out by the writer Columella) were such a pride for them, then it is unlikely they would have let anything happen to their genetic purity. This was a meticulous society, and undoubtedly, they had breed standards, even if surviving records aren't readily available.

When your dad researches this topic, please have him read Columella's writing as well as the extant writings of the Roman generals. There are several allusions to agile, strong, and powerful black dogs that were used in military conquests. Marcus Aurelius, although almost 100 years after the 74 A.D. campaign, was known to use these dogs against enemy cavalry because they were fearless and would bite the legs of the horses and eventually bring them down or weaken them. Again, this is a historical assumption, but I would also think that, based upon the Roman ideal, they would prefer a dog like the Rottweiler -- one that is very, very strong, lean, fast, quick, dependable, brave and with great endurance -- much unlike some of the much larger mastiff breeds who would be a bit slower and less strong pound for pound.

Also, have him take a look at the origin of the mastiff from Asia Minor and Eastern Europe because this gives us a valuable clue as to when the mastiff arrived in Western Europe. If the mastiff came to Western Europe around 500 B.C.E., then it is very likely that a Rottweiler-type dog, the black guard dog of the Romans, descended from these early mastiffs. And remember to tell him that the Romans were quite surprised when they found mastiffs in the British Isles. They had never seen dogs as big as these dogs. That also leads us to believe that there was nothing in their possession that resembled a true modern-day mastiff.

It'll be nice to hear his thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,

Mark

[mark_sherry]

Hello all,

I found this article on a Roman History page and I thought it had some interesting information.

"The Romans favorite fighting mastiff was a giant called the Mollosser. Said to have weighed in excess of two hundred pounds, with jaws that could crush a lions foreleg in one bite, the mollosser was a crowd pleaser! There was no papers or pedigrees kept, ( there may well have been, but no evidence has survived the ages.) but all animals used for the empires purposes were bred with care and diligence. The Romans took great pride in the quality of its working animals and bred only the best with the best.

"Because of the Mollosser's success in the coliseum, it became desirable and fashionable for aristocrats to use these giants for guarding property. But the Mollosser was too much to handle for the average person and it was bred to an unknown type of large dog to make what is now known as the Neopolitan Mastiff. As a war dog, the Mollosser was too slow and cumbersome to be used successfully alongside Roman troops, and was crossed with what was then a sleek, athletic type of hound dog. The resulting match was what the legions needed! The tail was docked to reduce injury and add speed in movement, and ears were cropped close to the skull so the dog would not bleed to death in the event of injury during battle.

"What the Roman legions called the dog is lost in obscurity, but tales of the war dogs brave and heroic exploits have been documented. In one story the war dog was equipped with a body harness with cauldrons of boiling oil attached to its side, and then sent into the enemies ranks! This most likely resulted in the dog being burned to death itself, but it is a testament to the dogs heart and loyalty.

"Another story that has survived says the war dog was fitted with leather body armour bristling with sharp spikes, and then sent into enemy ranks in a pack to scatter and disrupt the enemy. Indeed...many past cultures who fought the Romans and survived to document the battles have mentioned the Romans mighty 'dogs of war'!

"With the fall of the empire came the extinction of the Mollosser, and the coliseum was no longer fashionable, but the Mollosser lives on in the blood of the Neopolitan Mastiff and the modern Cane Corso Mastiff. The roman war dogs were too useful in other ways, and were kept in favour as guard dogs, herding livestock and hunting big game. Indeed, it became the dog of choice for farmers.

Going back to the theory that I proposed earlier about the Rottweiler's origin as a war dog with the Roman Legion, this article helps piece some of the puzzle together. While the Mollosser would have been too big and cumbersome for war, as well as the Cane Corso and Neopolitan mastiffs, a Rottweiler type dog would have been perfect for the type of warfare the Romans used. Strong dogs, agile, quick, fast, courageous, and very loyal.

Well, it's just a thought and another piece of literature to review.

[Barbara Surplus]

Mark, speaking of Mollossers, I came across this website quite some time ago. Thought you might be interested.
Barbara

http://members.lycos.nl/RoyMuller/proef1.html

[mark_sherry]

Barbara,

Thank you. Good site with lots of links to information about rare breeds and Mollasser/Mastiffs. It's interesting to note that some people still use the term "Mollasser" while others denote it as a dog lost with with the fall of Rome. No doubt, all of these dogs are big and bulky though. I surprised that so many of them are so rare.

Thank you,

Mark

[Roscoe's dad]

http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclop...nes/canes.html