History of the Rottie

[mark_sherry]

Roscoe's Dad,
Great amount of primary sources of information. Too bad it didn't touch upon the subject of what the Roman Legion took with them. I know the Mollossers weren't with them because they were too big and cumbersome for the task at hand. But what a spectacle they must have been in the colliseum.
Mark

[ROTTSVILLE]

"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!

"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.


MARK,
I honestly do not intend to sound negative about your theory, and i would love it to be a true and accurate account.

With regard to the Cane Corso,
well, here we go again, yet another MYTH.
There is no proof that i am aware of, that this dog existed even 100 years ago let alone over 2000.
People believing this have made some breeders plenty of money !!!!

Also, if todays rotts are genuinely genetically related to these FANTASTICALLY COURAGEOUS DOGS,

Then where have all these FANTASTICALLY COURAGEOUS GENES GONE.
Most rotts are not cabable of true protection work!
(let a lone WAR-DOGS)!

Here lies the secret mystery of the "lost-genes" !!!!!

Whatever the Romans did or did not do, is somewhat immaterial.
There is a simple but important fact that is being over-looked.
As nancy implied,
The real bone of contention is,
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 2000 YEARS OR SO,
SINCE THE ROMANS???????????????????

It may not be as "romantic" or as "eye-catching" as the "claim-to- fame" version.
But you cant miss the "glaringly obvious" FLAW in your theory.

Our imaginations have licence to roam, if we stray from the hard,boring,simple, FACTS.

[mark_sherry]

Rottsville,

There is no allusion to the Cane Corso in my theory other than my referencing it with the article that I posted and juxtaposing it with my Rottweiler-Legion theory. I merely posted another historical account taken from primary sources from the period.

You continue to allude to myth and fantasy in your replies. If I were to tell you that I travelled in time and saw one of these dogs, then, yes, you should say that I am living in a land of myth and fantasy.

However, when I am conducting a historical study of the breed, and I am using PRIMARY sources as well as NOTED SECONDARY historians to draw my theories from, then I cannot be living in a land of myth and fantasy. You have continuously ignored the primary sources available. Do you trust your own opinions over those who lived during those times? Do you trust your own judgements regarding Roman civilization over those who have spent their entire life studying it?

And once again, you have proven that you have not read the entire thread, and it seems that you have not read any of the primary sources of data that exists. You should take the time to do so. While I provide primary and secondary sources from reputable academics, you provide nothing but raw opinion and assumption. And we all know what "assume" means.

[RottyMommy]

Rottsville,

I just want to reply and say that when I read what Mark cited, it doesn't seem to me to say these dogs ARE modern day mollossers or some kind of super-canine war dogs.

It says to me that some modern breeds may be descendents of the Mollossers. It discusses what is known or commonly believed about the dogs and then Mark pulls that forward to throw out some ideas and possibilities.

That doesn't imply that they are one-in-the-same, just that soemwhere along the line perhaps the Mollosser influenced, either directly or indirectly, the development of the Neopolitan Mastiff, the Cane Corso mastiff and, in light of our specific discussion, the Rottweiler.

No one is drawing direct relationships, just examining possibility and trying to draw out likelyhoods. We are all kind of thinking out loud here and throwing ideas at the wall to kind of see what sticks. That's why the feedback is good, by everyone contributing we can kind of pick through the chaf and come up with reasonable and interesting history. That's what makes this such a fun thread.

At least that's just my opinion.

[ROTTSVILLE]

ROTTYMOMMY,
I hear what you say, and do appreciate your point.

But my point that i've been reitterating to Mark,
is that, whatever Romans findings he may be able to unearth,
there is still a "missing-link",
infact some 2000 years worth of missing link!!!!

Mark, i must commend you on your excellent qualifications,
so you must be aware that of the simple point that i am making.

If you read many dog books about ancient and noble breeds, many claim connections to glorious past events and army's.

If you read the first and last page of any book,
then you havent read the book !

There are people who write books about dogs,
and there are people who know about dogs.

I must say that the reaserch you are doing i do find interesting, and JUDI W 's Quote that she posted in this thread, i thought was particularly interesting.

But my point is that any connections with todays Rottweiler is an "unknown quantity". The x factor !

If you can explain and prove what happened in the missing 2000 years then we can replace The x factor !!!!

No matter how much Roman research is done
It does not alter the facts that the only Logical answer is that for the x factor, we simply do not know !

i know that you obviously have a passion for history, and that my view point would seem to go against, somethings you feel strongly about, rotts, Romans and history.

But you being an educated man, you know that this connection or link, however small must have proven "continuity" to have credibility.

The link with todays Rotts is purely supposition.
Those foundations make for a very wobbly structure.
Because instead of using reinforced concrete for foundations,
you are using the dreaded " X FACTOR" !!!

But if you do not state a "LINK"
Then the work you are doing rearching Roman dogs is interesting !

[mark_sherry]

Rottsville,

Finally, you have decided to discuss this matter with a degree of fairness and tact on the academic level that it deserves, and I totally agree with you on your point that the "X Factor" is a link that needs to be made before any theory is made concrete. This is something that you have failed to state clearly and concisely in the past, and had you of done so, I think we could have all gone our merry way without any confrontation.

To begin with, my belief IS a theory -- you are correct there, and I have never stated anything as fact. I do take generalizations from cultural studies and tie them together with primary and secondary academic sources on Roman, Roman Legion, and Roman war dog literature and oral histories. When you are dealing with 2,000 years of history, sometimes an educated generalization is better than common sense. Many times, factual evidence overrides what we would expect from common sense.

The subject that we are undertaking is very broad and generalized, and what you are asking us to do is tie everything into a neat little package within a day or two. That is not possible. Currently, our discussion deals with the pros and cons of the Roman Empire. We have discussed the introduction of the Mastiff to Western Europe from the East, through Phoenecia and Greece, and then to the British Isles where it is documented that the Romans caught their first glimpse of the giant mastiffs -- documented by the Caesar's historians themselves! As well, we have discussed the virtues of two breeds of dogs the Romans recorded for guard duty and their primary function. From there, we have one Roman general who is listed as a primary source as using a smaller, lighter, faster, black version of the mastiff guard dog for combat, especially against enemy cavalry.

Beyond that, we have not had time to do much else. Give us time to put together the 2,000 years of history. The fact that we haven't done it yet doesn't mean that the primary and secondary sources of information about Rome (B.C. and A.D.) is incorrect.

I am not trying to say that our Rottweiler is an identical replica of the Roman dog. I am just trying to prove that the Rottweiler may be a very close representation to the famous dog of war that the Roman generals used throughout their conquest of Europe. I believe, with time, that it can be shown what, if any, impact your "X Factor" also had with this breed.

Mark

[TrishB]

There is the X factor. But part of being a historian (which I am not) is to fill in those blanks with 'probabilities' and 'most likelys'.

We accept that the Romans covered a massive area of land. We accept that they captured animals from across Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. We accept that they were well known for breeding type to type - for the purity of everything Rome. Everything was tailored to their needs, even their animals. We can accept that the Romans were responsible for the spread of the Mastiff across their domain. We can accept that they 'reseeded' areas with their animals as being superior - areas which never would have been introduced to those particular animals otherwise.

The Romans only brought with them very few 'breeds' of the time - and therefore, would have left very few 'breeds' behind. I have 'breeds' in quotes because there of course wasn't a registry at the time. However, their breeding programs were very particular for all of their animals - be it their horses, dogs, cats or 'games' animals. Due to their selectivity - we can assume that the dogs left behind (and there would have been massive numbers) were of 'pure' Roman breeding.

As the Romans pulled back due to their losses, they did so with their dogs. As their losses became larger, the dogs began to be left behind. So it would prove to be a solid assumption that the majority of the dogs would have been left behind in their last strongholds - in central Europe - Germany, Italy, etc.

Those dogs were then adopted by the countrymen as powerful and effective herding dogs. This would explain our breeds solid herding instinct. It's thousands of years old! ;) Times were also very lean as the empire lost power. A HUGE dog, such as the Mollaser would have been killed - too much to feed, too big not to utilize as food (sad fact, but true). The medium, compact build, powerful ancestor of the Rottie earned his way. These were working dogs, herding, protectors, carting, family companions. It was their drive to work that saved them. It is that same drive that we see today - it too is thousands of years old.

As I said - I am not a historian. However it is easy to see how a large population of breed type would have populated a specific area. It is also easy to see that the needs at the time matched the skills of these dogs. Times moved much slower then - dogs were working animals, not luxuries and pets as today. Not to say that accidental breedings didn't exist - however hard working dogs were cherished and bred with care. Dogs without the ability to earn their keep, weren't kept.

Acient breeds such as the Pharoah Hound didn't have a registry etither - however their history is rich and deep. They too have an X factor. The facts surrounding them provide us with the ability to make educated guesses.

Unless you know of someone who is 2000+ years old - we'll never know everything. However, I'd risk it to say that we know enough to be able to trace our dogs to their roots, based on the solid history that we can verify.

[mark_sherry]

TrishB,

You have made an error in your argument! You claim that you are not a historian! I say, "Bologna. You are a historian!" Very well-written!

Thank you for your input. You have made some very key points that I don't think I can do justice by reiterating. I just suggest that everyone go back and re-read what you've written because you have given us a fresh outlook on this key historical point.

Thank you,

Mark

[KRISSIE]

Hi Mark, The Rottweiler is mentioned on this site as being one of the decendents of the Mollossus breeds, thought you might like to see it ..



http://www.mastiffweb.com/history.htm

[mark_sherry]

Krissie,

It's funny that you should post that site. I was just looking at it while doing some research tonight! :)

I spoke with Dr. Charles Eagen, Prof. Emeritus Classical History ECU, ret., last week regarding this topic, and tonight, he returned my phone call. He gave me a lot of information that will be helpful to our studies, and I think everyone reading this thread will find interesting; however, I am not going to post it all at once.

In the true nature of the search for historical truth, he reminded me of something that I had forgotten from my college days -- that I must give time for the opposition to voice their opinion. To do so, he advised me to find an article written by an academic that dispels any of the theories that we have been discussing. So, in the spirit of open-mindedness, I will post an article that I have found.

I would like everyone who is interested in this subject to read it with an open and critical mind. This person is making claims that cannot be proven with any more strength of validity as the other side. I can tell you that Dr. Eagen has given me some pretty solid primary sources of information that you all may have never seen, and you may find very interesting -- but more to come on those within the next few days.

[mark_sherry]

Like I said in the previous post, writing history requires an endless amount of research, as well as an endless amount of reading. Although I have my own formulated views, I find it helpful to always read what "the other side" has to say. What are their arguments and objections? What are their strengths? What are my weaknesses? The object is not to win the debate. It is to seek truth, and truth can only come through debate and research. Here's an indepth article that is worth reading. I welcome anyone to address this article in regards to your own viewpoints. However, don't make any quick decisions because she has not used a lot of sources that are available.

"As a former professor of ancient history, I have often cast a jaundiced eye over the largely imaginary and highly romanticized early histories of the various dog breeds. One of the real clichés of canine history is that the famous Molossus dog of Greek and Roman antiquity was a dog of the bulldog/mastiff type and ancestral to modem breeds of the same sort.

This belief, which may go back to Renaissance times and was sanctified by the 18th century science in the person of the great taxonomist Linnaeus, is universal today: "These dogs [mastiffs] were treasured by the Greeks, who called them Molossians (after the ancient district of Molossia in Epirus, northwestern Greece), John McLoughlin, The Canine Clan, 1984, page 108. "The [Neopolitan Mastiftl is the descendant of the ancient Molasses [sic], which were bred by the Greeks and later the Romans for use in arena fights and also as dogs of war," Dr. Carl Semencic, The World of Fighting Dogs, 1984, p. 185. See also Douglas B. Oliff, The Mastiff and Bulimastiff Handbook, 1987, pp.3-4-, Mario Zacchi, The Neopolitan Mastiff, 1987, pp. 15-49.

Today, it is quite common to refer to mastiff-like dogs-- Mastiffs, Bullmastiffs, Dogues, Neos, American Bulldogs, etc.--as "Molossers." An advertisement in Dog World proclaims the Japanese Tosa as "the ultimate Molosser." I gather that in Europe there are special "Molosser" clubs and shows for Dogues, Neos and such.

The Molossus-Mastiff connection has been formerly enshrined by science in that family of so-called "mastiff bats" is scientifically designated the "Molossidae."

Unfortunately, the factual evidence for this seemingly universal belief is all but non-existent. The notion that the Molossus dog was some sort of ancestral bulldog or mastiff is almost certainly completely false! The best literary evidence suggests that the real Molossus dog was a lightly built coursing dog, closer to a greyhound than a mastiff, as I intend to demonstrate below.

WHO WERE THE MOLOSSI?

The Molossi were a people living in the mountainous region of northwestern Greece and southern Albania. They were the foremost of the tribes making up the Epirote Confederacy. We are not sure of their ethnic affinities. They may have been Greek "hillbillies," or they may have been Illyrians (who many or may not have been ancestors of the modem Albanians) or a mixture of the two peoples. In any event, they were long regarded by the more civilized Greeks as a backward and semi-barbarous people. By the 4th century B.C., their royal family had assimilated Greek culture and claimed descent from Neoptolemus, the son of great Achilles. A prominent Molossian king was Alexander of Epirus (aka Alexander the Molossian), who waged war in Italy and died in 330 B.C. His sister was Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. Greatest of the Molossian-Epirote kings was Pyrrhus (who gives us the term "Pyrrhic victory" for an excessively costly success). At various times Pyrrhus attempted to conquer Macedonia, Rome and Italy, Sicily and finally Greece before being killed in 272 B.C. Thereafter, Molossia and Epirus tended to become a political satellite of Macedonia. The Molossi were crushed by the Romans in 170 B.C.

All of this is a long way of introducing the fact that it is preposterous to assume that the big hunting dogs depicted on the friezes of Assyrian kings like Ashumasirpal E or Ashbanipal hundreds of years earlier, to say nothing of other mastiff-like dogs depicted in yet more ancient eastern art, came from a remote, isolated and barbarous region well over a thousand miles away.
Nonetheless, the claim is often made that these dogs are indeed Molossian: "The Assyrian kings ... maintained large kennels of Molossians, huge Mastiff-like dogs that were used for hunting and war,"

Shirley Kalstone, "The Dog in Art," in The AKCs World of the Pure Bred Dog, 1983,p.269.See also K.S.Matz, The Pit Bull in Fact and Fable, 1984, pp. 5-12.

A variant of this is the claim that these Assynan dogs were exported to Greece, where they then became known as Molossi, although I have never heard a plausible suggestion of how these presumably valuable dogs ended up in the remote, backward, mountainous, land-locked region of Molossia.

THE MOLOSSUS DOG

The true Molossus dog was undeniably one of the most famous dogs of classical (Greco-Roman) antiquity. It is variously mentioned as a premier hunting dog, an aggressive guard dog and as a guardian and herder of cattle and sheep by many of the greatest writers in Greek and Latin literature over a period of 800 years.
[Note: Because I do not have access to a university library, I have been unable to check all literary references to the Molossus dog. Those that I have not been able to check include: Pollux, V, 37-1 Oppian, Cynegetica 1, 375; Plautus, Captivi 86-, Seneca, Phaedra 33; Statius, Thebais III, 203, Silvae 11, 6, 19, Achilleis 1, 747; Martial XR, 1, 1, Claudian, Stilicho H, 215, III, 293. 1 encourage anyone with the opportunity to do so to check out these references and see if anything else germane to the topic can be found.]

The earliest reference to the Molossus dog occurs in the Athenian comedian Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae (line 416), which was staged in 411 B.C. A passing reference is made there to the Molossus dog with mastiff types is found in Aristotle's History of Animals (608a), written about 347 B.C.: "Of the Molossian breed of dogs, such as are employed in the chase are pretty much the same as those elsewhere- but the sheep-dogs of this breed are superior to the others in size, and in the courage with which they face the attacks of wild animals." (Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 1994). The allusions to the dogs' size and courage are faintly suggestive of a mastiff type, but all Aristotle is really saying is that the strains of the Molossus breed favored for herding are larger and braver than those used for hunting. The dual function of the Molossus as both a herdsman's dog and a hunting dog are echoed in the Roman poet Horace's Sixth Epode (lines 5-10), where the Molossus and the very similar Laconian (Spartan) hound are first described as a "friendly force for shepherds" ( amica vis pastoribus) and then as relentless trackers. Virgil likewise (Georgics III, 404-413) refers to the Molossian and Laconian dogs as both hunters and protectors of livestock.

MOLOSSI AND THE "BRITISH DOG"

A fairly common piece of "mastiff malarkey" is that British dogs of the mastiff or bulldog type were brought to Rome and pitted against the Molossi, and the British dogs proved superior (e.g., Dr. Carl Semencic, Pit Bulls & Tenacious Guard Dogs, 199 1, p. 242; K.S. Matz, The Pit Bull. Fact and Fable, 1984, p. 12).

Actually, there seems to be little or no evidence (at least that I can find) that the Romans routinely used mastiffs or other fighting dogs in the arenas (except at the very end of the classical period), despite many assertions to this effect by modem authors. It is interesting that Roland Auget's Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games (1972) makes no mention at all of dogs being used for combats in the arena, nor did the Romans seem to have much interest in dogfights as such. (After watching lions, tigers, bears, wild bulls, elephants, rhinos and men going at each other in the arena, the Romans would probably have found pit dog matches tame and boring by comparison!) The oft-mentioned claim that the Romans made extensive use of war dogs seems to have scant literary and archaeological support as well.

To return to the purported battles between the British "mastiffs" and the Roman's Molossi, the whole notion seems to have its roots in a passage of Grattius (sometimes called, on dubious authority, Grattius "Falisctis"), who wrote a 540-line poem on dogs and hunting sometime shortly before 8 A.D. The Translation in the Loeb Classical Library of this passage (I 1. 174-18 1) reads as follows: "What if you visit the straits of Morini, tide-swept by the wayward sea, and choose to penetrate even among the Britons? Oh how great your reward, how great your gain beyond any outlays! If you are not bent on looks or deceptive graces (this is the one defect of the British whelps), at any rate, when serious work has come, when bravery must be shown and the impetuous War-god calls in the utmost hazard, then you could not admire the renowned Molossians so much."

To paraphrase Grattius in simpler language, he is saying, "If you want a really good [hunting dog], a trip to Britain would almost be worth it. The British dogs may not look like much, but for bravery in a fight [with game animals, as the adjacent passages make clear] even the famous Molossus does not surpass them" In short, all Grattius is saying is that Britain produced plucky hunting dogs, period. All the statements about British fighting dogs being pitted against Molossi or exhibited in the arena at this time are modem flights of fancy bersed on this eight lines of Grattius. There is nothing in Grattius that these British dogs were bulldogs, mastiffs, "fighting dogs" (pugnaces) or anything of the sort. Amusingly, the author of the entry on "Dogs" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary cites the same passage to claim, "...from Britain [came] a small, shaggy terrier of poor appearance but great courage." Mastiff or Scotty? Our modem authorities can't seem to make up their minds about Grattius' "British dog"!

THE REAL MOLOSSI

Although most allusions to the Molossus dog in literature are passing references to it in its role as a hunting dog or as an aggressive protector of humans and livestock and fail to give any physical description, we can get some idea of what it looked like. For example, Lucan, writing about 64 A.D., (Pharsalia IV, 440) alludes to the levis Molossi. Now, levis has the basic meaning in Latin of "light" (in weight). It can also mean "swift" or "nimble." None of these are adjectives that one is likely to apply to a mastiff-type dog!

However, the passage in ancient literature that really dashes the Molossus-mastiff identification is found in the poet M. Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus, writing about 284 A.D. In his poem about dogs and hunting, he all but gives us a breed standard for the Molossian and the Laconian dogs, which evidently were very similar (I 1. 103223). He says that a bitch to be mated should befacilem cursu, facilenique recursu (I. 106 ("good at running, good at running back" [on command]. "She should be tall, on straight legs" (I 1. 108-9). She should have a "firm belly" (I. II1). He tells how her ultra soft ears should flow back as she runs (I. II3).

Neinesianus advises when culling puppies to test for those which promise to be "light in running" (I. 139), and these are to be spared.

Nemesianus, then, makes it abundantly clear that the Molossus dog, far from being some sort of mastiff, was actually a rangily built coursing dog, probably more akin to the greyhound. (If running down jackrabbits is your game, the Dogue and the Neo are not exactly the breeds that come to mind!)
Perhaps the closest contemporary counterpart to the Molossus dog of antiquity would be something like the Catahoula Leopard Dog, which is a fairly rangy conformation and serves both as a herder and a hunter; it is also reputed to be an aggressive guard dog.

This is born out in classical art, where lean dogs on the order of the Catahoula (without the spots) abound, but mastiff types tend to be conspicuous by their absence, despite Vicki Heame's attempts to turn the famous statue of the Capitoline Wolf into the "Capitoline Pit Bull" Bandit, 199 1, pp. 174-177.) Even Zacchi, an ardent proponent of the Molossus-mastiff connection, has to admit, "Roman iconography, of which there is actually not a great deal on the Molossian dog, is less clearcut than the Persian and Assyrian-Babylonian concerning unity and type." The Neopolitan niastiff, pp. 27-28. About the best examples he can cite are two smallish, broad-headed dogs that could easily pass for American Pit Bull Terriers on a late Roman sarcophagus Ibid. Give the frequent references to the Molossus dog in literature, the near non-existence of mastiff-like dogs in Greco-Roman art alone would make it highly improbable that the Molossus dog was any sort of mastiff, especially when recognizably mastiff-like dogs were relatively common in the art of the ancient near east. (Some authors, aware of these difficulties, have suggested that the Molossus was a "cursorial mastiff" of the boarhound/Great Dane type. However, there really isn't any good evidence to suggest that the Molossus was any kind of mastiff at all, "cursorial" or not!)

In short, the identification of the famous Molossus dog of antiquity with bull and mastiff breeds is entirely a modern (in the broad sense of the word) misconception. The scientific designation of the mastiff bats as "Molossidae" is based on the same fallacy. The contemporary practice of calling contemporary mastiff-like dogs "Molossers" should be discontinued in the interests of accuracy (although I don't expect this to happen anytime soon).

MASTIFF MISCELLANY
TIBETANS AT ROME?

Because the famous Molossus dog was evidently not a mastiff type, it does not necessarily follow that mastiff-like dogs were entirely unknown to the Romans. Such dogs were in existence in Asia centuries before the heyday of Rome. It also seems incontrovertible that the mastiff-like dogs were known to the Romans by the end of the classical period, around 400 A.D. There is a description of what makes a good watchdog in L. Junius Columella's De Re Rustica (written circa 60-65 A.D.) that sounds decidedly mastiff-like. I don't have the reference, but it is quoted in Semencic's Pit Bulls, pp. 255-6:

"The guard dog for the house should be black in color so that during the day a prowler can be frightened by his appearance, When night falls, the dog, lost in the shadows, can attack without being seen. The head is so massive that it seems to be the most important part of the body. The ears fall toward the front, the brilliant and penetrating eyes are black or gray, the chest is deep and hairy, the hind legs are powerful, the front legs are covered with long thick hair, and he is short legged with strong toes and nails."

Semencic takes this to refer to the Neopolitan Mastiff, but the references to the hairy chest and the long hair make it sound like one of the shaggy mastiffs, on the order of the Tibetan Mastiff, rather than the smooth-coated Neo. And lo, there is some evidence that the Tibetan Mastiff may have been kept by the Romans. There is a line in Grattius (I. 159): "There are those who raise Chinese dogs, a breed of ungovernable rage." Some commentators have suggested that these ferocious Chinese dogs may actually have been Tibetan Mastiffs. What else? Chows? Shar-peis?)

Lest one take Grattius too seriously, however, between his references to the fierce Chinese dogs and the plucky British dog discussed earlier, he tells how bitches of the Hyrcanian breed shun the dogs and go into the woods to mate with tigers to produce nobler offspring! (Hyrcania was a district of northern Iran famous for its tigers.) Although the pedigree of the Hyrcanian dogs may be discounted, Grattius (I 1. 161-170) describes the breed as prone to killing livestock, but redeeming itself as a "great fighter" magnus pugnator in the forest. Was this another Asian mastiff, perhaps akin to the Assyrian dogs, with a tiger-brindle coat accounting for the tall tails about its breeding?

In the treatise on dogs and hunting attributed to the Athenian soldier and man of letters Xenophon, who lived in the first half of the 4th century B.C., the author recommends the "Indian dog" as being ideal for hunting deer (IX, I) and wild boar (X, 1), describing these dogs as "strong, large, swift-footed and not lacking in spirit." E.C. Marchant in the Loeb edition (p. 421) identifies these Indian dogs as "Thibet dogs, called by Grattius (I 5 9) Seres. " I must question this identification, however.

"Swift-footed" (podokeis) is not an adjective I would apply to such a massive dog.
Some scholars use the reference to Indian dogs as evidence that Xenophon did not write the work, arguing that such dogs would have been familiar in Greece before the conquests of Alexander the Great. Surprisingly, the famous Molossus dog is nowhere mentioned in this work. If the author is Xenophon, this may have been because he was very biased in favor of all things Spartan. This extended to the Lacoman dogs, which he recommends highly, and so he may have regarded the Molossian dog in much the same light a dyed-in-the-wool pit bull man would an Amstaff or Bull Terrier!

MORE MASTIFF MALARKEY

Finally, a short look at a couple of other bits of "mastiff malarkey." 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)! The same breed history continues with an account of how "huge British fighting dogs" defeated all other varieties in the Circus and were matched against human gladiators, bulls, bears, lions and tigers--all of which seems to have been inflated from the few lines of Grattius about the plucky, if nondescript, British hunting dogs discussed earlier.

Another howler found in the Mastiff history in the AKC Complete Dog Book is an account attributed to Herodotus telling how Cyrus the Elder, founder of the Persian Empire, received a mastiff from the king of Albania (a region in the Caucaus, not to be confused with the modem state in Europe). When the dog proved wanting in gameness after being pitted against a dog and a bull, Cyrus, disgusted, had it killed. The king of Albania then sent a mastiff bitch with the admonition that it was beneath the dignity of a mastiff to fight a dog or bull and that Cynis should set it on a worthy opponent like a lion or an elephant. "Whereupon, says Herodotus, the Mastiff bitch was set to attack an elephant and did so with such fury that she worried the elephant down to the ground and would have killed it." Only trouble is, this story is nowhere in Herodotus! Evidently it is a corrupted version of a story from Pliny the Elder's Natural History VHI, 4, told about Alexander the Great,, and the dogs are merely described as being of "extraordinary size" (Zacchi, The Neopolitan Mastiff, p. 17). Zacchi, however, has a similar blunder when he claims that Livy states that a large number of Epirote dogs followed the triumphal chariot of Aemilius Paulus after the Roman victory over the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 B.C. "This group of molossians went to make up the nucleus of 'fighters' [pugnaces] used for combat in the arena." There are no references to any dogs found in Livys account of Aemilius Paulus' triumph, nor did Diodorus Siculus' nor in Plutarch's."

[mark_sherry]

Just to give you a small hint at things to come, Dr. Libourel admits to not having a library to find her sources. While being a noted scholar, she is drawing too much from a lack of resources available to her.

In an attempt to dispel one of her points, I bring to the table the idea that dogs were used in war. I will quote a Primary Source -- Pliny the Elder, one of the most prolific writers of Roman history. He says:


propter bella Colophonii itemque Castabalenses cohortes canum habuere. hae primae dimicabant in acie numquam detrectantes; haec erant fidissima auxilia nec stipendiorum indiga.

"The people of Colophon and Castabala kept troops of dogs for the purposes of war. These used to fight in the front rank and never retreat; they were the most faithful of auxiliaries, and yet required no pay." (book VIII, LXI)

While this is just a general reference made to the use of dogs in war, the author who quotes Pliny the Elder makes it known that he believes that the Roman Legions bred the Rottweiler as their war dog.

More interesting stuff to come. . .

[German Vanegas]

If the Rottweiler descended from the "mastiff", then it must be the Tibetan Mastiff. However, I would like to say that in the last XX Century alone, the Rottweiler breed has gone through some changes, and today's Rottweilers are not replicas of dogs in the early 1900's... So, having said that, how could the breed have remained intact in "purity", since the Roman Empire times (That is: B.C.) ?!?!... It would be foolish to think that the alledge Roman Rottweiler is the Rottweiler we know in present times. Genetics evolve and are transformed, for better or for worse, and the Rottweiler breed has not been exempted from such changes ;)

[RottyMommy]

However, I would like to say that in the last XX Century alone, the Rottweiler breed has gone through some changes, and today's Rottweilers are not replicas of dogs in the early 1900's... So, having said that, how could the breed have remained intact in "purity", since the Roman Empire times (That is: B.C.) ?!?!... It would be foolish to think that the alledge Roman Rottweiler is the Rottweiler we know in present times. Genetics evolve and are transformed, for better or for worse, and the Rottweiler breed has not been exempted from such changes

German,

If I am understanding your question/point and what others have said correctly, no one here has stated that the breed has remained "pure" to modern times. Rather, our current discussion is focused on one specific period in history.

During the period that the discussion is currently looking at, the ancient Roman period, the Romans strove to create and maintain a standard. Breeding was intentional and controlled to maintain "Roman Purity".

Perhaps now would be a good time to sum up the main questions in front of us. These are the main questions that I pick up from our current discussion:

Did the Roman's, during their height, when they had the power, resources and control to "engineer" (to use a modern concept), purposefully breed and maintain a dog to acheive an ideal?

Did the Roman's aspire to breed one "perfect" multi-purpose dog or multiple highly refined dog types with specific purposes for each in mind?

How were these dog utilized by the Roman Legions? ...by Roman "civilians"?

Where does this Roman dog (or dogs) fit in the evolution of the Rottweiler? And how has this dog (or dogs) impacted the dog we now know (and love) as the Rottweiler?


I am really enjoying looking at these questions in specific moments in time. I can't wait to see what we come up with as we move forward in time......... "Tune in next week as our hero....." :)

[KRISSIE]

While this is just a general reference made to the use of dogs in war, the author who quotes Pliny the Elder makes it known that he believes that the Roman Legions bred the Rottweiler as their war dog.

,

Wow, very interesting...I am anixious to read the authors theory on this ..;)