Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:09:33.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DOGS OF WAR, OR DOGS IN WAR? THE USE OF DOGS IN CLASSICAL GREEK WARFARE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2020

Owen Rees
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1941, E. S. Forster wrote a short article, published in this journal, which compiled all of the instances he could identify in the ancient source material that described dogs being used in a military capacity. G. B. A. Fletcher, who had identified a few obscure references that Forster had not cited, responded to Forster's paper later that same year. The purpose of both papers was simply the compiling of a list, a purpose that had been inspired by Forster's interest in the French army's recruitment of dogs on the outbreak of the Second World War. The result was a thorough catalogue of known examples, showing the ancient dog being used for a variety of purposes such as patrol work or observation duties, or being used as combatants or despatch couriers. The primary aim, according to Forster was to ‘make a comparison with modern practice’ – that is, the French practice he had read about; the only exception for which he could find no ancient evidence was what he called ‘Red Cross’ work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , October 2020 , pp. 230 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am greatly indebted to Gervase Phillips for his invaluable comments on various drafts of this article.

References

1 Forster, E. S., ‘Dogs in Ancient Warfare’, G&R 10.30 (1941), 114–17Google Scholar.

2 Fletcher, G. B. A., ‘Another Word on Dogs in Ancient Warfare’, G&R 11.31 (1941), 34Google Scholar.

3 Forster (n. 1), 114, begins his article with a direct quote from a Daily Telegraph story in 1939, which described the French ambition to maintain an army of 1,000 dogs.

4 Forster (n. 1), 114.

5 The most in-depth treatment on the topic comes from David Karunanithy, Dogs of War. Canine Use in Warfare. From Ancient Egypt to the 19th Century Seminole Wars (London, 2008), 71–7, who explores the question within his overview of war dogs throughout history up to the nineteenth century. This work is analytical but can be understandably superficial as a result of its wide historical timeframe. It does, however, offer scholarly scepticism toward some of the episodes under discussion, without giving a clear indication for that scepticism. The topic has also been treated in part by Jean-Marc Luce, ‘Quelques jalons pour une histoire du chien en Grèce antique’, Pallas 76: Voyages en Antiquité. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Guiraud (2008), 261–93. Luce offers more historiography but focuses on the Hellenistic period more than the classical. When classical evidence is identified, it is offered without in-depth criticism.

6 For the purpose of clarity, classical Greek warfare within this article refers to a period from the beginning of the Persian Wars in 490 bc to the Theban defeat at the Second Battle of Mantinea in 362 bc. It does not include the period following the Second Battle of Mantinea owing to a scarcity of sources, and by the Hellenistic period the use of dogs in war had changed dramatically.

7 Anon., ‘Dogs of War’, Windsor Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly for Men and Women (November 1900), 622; C. Gilbert Ellis, ‘Dogs of War’, Merry England (July 1889), 189; Anon., ‘The Dogs of War’, Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art (28 December 1889), 738; W. T. Stead (ed.), ‘Dogs as Soldiers’, Review of Reviews (December 1896), 530; M. Foster, ‘Dogs of War’, The Idler: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine (September 1902), 684; W. C. L. Martin, The History of the Dog. Its Origin, Physical and Moral Characteristics, and Its Principal Varieties (London, 1845), 82–3.

8 E. H. Richardson, ‘War Dogs’, The Nineteenth Century and After: A Monthly Review (March 1905), 472.

9 E.H. Richardson, British War Dogs. Their Training and Psychology (London, 1920), 21–2.

10 Ibid., 50.

11 J. M. Kistler, Animals in the Military. From Hannibal's Elephants to the Dolphins of the U.S. Navy (Santa Barbara, CA, 2011), 5. See also N. Cawthorne, Canine Commandos. The Heroism, Devotion, and Sacrifice of Dogs in War (Berkeley, CA, 2012), 11–12; S. G. Chapman, Police Dogs in North America (Springfield, IL, 1990), 5; S. Coren, The Pawprints of History. Dogs in the Course of Human Events (New York, 2003), 11; E. Ross, The Book of Noble Dogs (New York, 1922), 258; M. Lemish, War Dogs. Canines in Combat. (London, 1996), 2.

12 Martin (n. 7), 83. Sōter is a common Greek epithet meaning ‘saviour’.

13 Plut. Vit. Arat. 24. It is impossible to state that there is no ancient evidence for this story; however, no Greek word searches, using the terms σωτήρ, κύων, κύνες, κυσὶ, δέραιον, δεραιοπέδη and λαιμοπέδη on TLG, Suda online, the Perseus database, AIO, or the PHI Greek inscriptions database have revealed an origin to this story.

14 Plut. Vit. Arat. 7–8.

15 On the importance of training, one need look no further than Richardson's words regarding the need to train a messenger dog in wartime: ‘The training of the messenger dog requires a decidedly special gift in the instructor. Without a long, intimate, and practical working experience among dogs on a large scale, no one need attempt to train [them]’ (Richardson [n. 9], 64). On the varied roles given to dogs in warfare dominated by machines, see G. Phillips, ‘Technology, “Machine Age” Warfare, and the Military Use of Dogs, 1880–1918’, Journal of Military History 82 (2018), 1–28.

16 Xen. Cyn. 6–8.

17 A. Schnapp, ‘Représentaion du territoire de guerre et du territoire de chasse dans l'oeuvre de Xénophon’, in M. Finley (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1973), 317; V. Gray, ‘Xenophon's Cynegeticus’, Hermes 113 (1985), 159–61; S. Johnstone, ‘Virtuous Toil, Vicious Work: Xenophon on Aristocratic Style’, in V. Gray (ed.), Xenophon. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies (Oxford, 2010), 147; L. L'Allier, ‘The Last Chapter of the Cynegeticus’, in C. Tupling and F. Hobden (eds.), Xenophon. Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry (Leiden, 2012), 483–8; J. Dillery, ‘Xenophon: The Small Works’, in M. A. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon (Cambridge, 2017), 215–16.

18 Xen. Cyn. 6.20, 7.5, 7.11–12, respectively.

19 Ibid., 7.10.

20 Ibid., 1.18. Translation: H. Lu, Xenophon's Theory of Moral Education (Cambridge, 2015), 73.

21 Ibid., 12.1, 13.11. It is a connection that Xenophon makes in some of his other minor works as well: see Lu (n. 20), 73.

22 Hdt. 7.187.1.

23 Diod. Sic. 17.92. See also Curt. 9.1.31–4; Strab. 15.1.37. For more on the Indian dog, see discussion below.

24 Hdt. 1.192.

25 Luce (n. 5), 278, with P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris, 1996); although, unlike Luce, I do not feel these dogs were also used in a military capacity, for there is no evidence to suggest this.

26 Hdt. 5.1.2, translation adapted from R. Strassler (ed.), The Landmark Herodotus. The Histories (London, 2008).

27 Forster (n. 1), 115.

28 Aen. Tact. 22.20.

29 The earliest evidence we have for a full time garrison unit of dogs does not appear until the Hellenistic period in 268/267 bc, where an inscription confirms the upkeep of dogs as part of a new defensive system being implemented in Rhamnous: SEG 24.154. The military relationship with dogs definitely changed in the Hellenistic period, with the appearance of a new role, the kynegos, or leader of the dogs. For a study on the term, see Pierre Roussel, ‘Les kynagoi à l’époque Hellénistique et Romaine’, REG (1930), 361–71, who briefly suggests that this example from Aeneas offers a possible parallel to the kynagos role in later sources (363), but he offers no specific evidence to support this.

30 Aen. Tact. 12.14.

31 There is more evidence for dogs being used like this from outside the classical period. Pausanias (4.21.1) mentions that, during the siege of Eira, the Spartans who were scaling the walls were betrayed by the dogs of the city, who did not bark in their usual fashion, but continuously howled. As noted earlier, Plutarch (Vit. Arat. 24) describes the use of guard dogs by Aratus, in the third century bc, to guard the stronghold in the city of Corinth. During the Imperial Roman period, dogs are described as guarding fortresses by Vegetius (4.26), and the Capitol by both Cicero (Pro Sext. Rosc. 56) and Aulus Gellius (6.1.6).

32 Polyaenus Strat. 2.25.

33 Cf. Forster (n. 1), 116, who suggests that the dogs were accompanying human patrols, thus insinuating that they were specific patrol dogs. Polyaenus makes no such distinction and simply refers to a number of dogs being let loose around the camp.

34 He offers extensive advice on these matters: Aen. Tact. 11–14.

35 Aen. Tact. 31.32.

36 The Greek text is unclear about how this worked specifically. It simply says that a letter was stitched into the strap, which seems impractical if taken literally. A more likely explanation is that there was some form of discreet pocket into which the letter was placed.

37 An important factor in our understanding of dogs in war that was not included in Forster's compilation.

38 Aen. Tact. 23.2.

39 Jul. Afr. Cest. 7. For more examples see E. S. McCartney, ‘On Keeping Animals Silent in Peace and War’, CJ 38.4 (1943), 224–5.

40 Aen. Tact. 38.3.

41 One extreme example of the kind of chaos that a dog could cause is described by Herodotus (7.88.1). The Persian cavalry commander Pharnuches was forced to stay in Sardis while the rest of the army began its march into Greece in 480 bc. He had been out hunting on horseback, with at least one dog accompanying him. At one point the dog ran between the legs of the horse, startling it into a panic, causing it to throw Pharnuches to the floor, after which he began to vomit blood and develop consumption.

42 There is some potential archaeological evidence that dates from the archaic period, some of which will be discussed here. However, for a forthright dismissal of the material evidence of the presence of dogs on a conventional battlefield, see R. M. Cook, ‘Dogs in Battle’, in T. Dohrn (ed.), Festschrift Andreas Rumpf. Zum 60. Geburstag dargebracht von Freuden und Schülern. Im Dezember 1950 (Krefeld, 1952), 40.

43 Polyaenus 7.2.1.

44 Hdt. 1.16.

45 Cook (n. 42), 39.

46 See ibid., 38–42; J. M. Barringer, The Hunt in Ancient Greece (Baltimore, MD, 2001), 258 n. 35; A. K. Nefedkin, ‘The Tactical Development of Achaemenid Cavalry’, Gladius 26 (2006), 9.

47 Cook (n. 42), 40.

48 Pliny, NH 8.61.

49 Ael. VH 14.46.

50 Cook (n. 42), 42.

51 A brief list of works that claim such a commonly held view include: J. A. Moody, L. A. Clark, and K. E. Murphy, ‘Working Dogs: History and Applications’, in E. A. Ostrander, U. Giger, and L.-T. Kerstin (eds.), The Dog and Its Genome (New York, 2007), 3; B. D. Cummins, Colonel Richardson's Airedales. The Making of the British War Dog School (Calgary, 2003), 26–7; J. Bell, K. Cavanagh, L. Tilley, and F. W. K. Smith, Veterinary Medical Guide to Dog and Cat Breeds (Jackson, WY, 2012), 322; C. DeVito and A. Ammen, The Everything Puppy Book. Choosing, Raising, and Training Your Littlest Best Friend (Avon, MA, 2002), 5; K. Thornton, Mastiffs. A Complete Pet Owner's Manual (Hauppauge, NY, 2009), 6.

52 M. Worboys, J.-M. Strange, and N. Pemberton, The Invention of the Modern Dog: Breed and Blood in Victorian Britain (Baltimore, MD, 2018), 7.

53 Ibid., 8–11.

54 On breeding, see Xen. Cyn. 6.1; on breeds for hunting, see Xen. Cyn. 10.1.

55 Xen. Cyn. 6.1 does describe a process by which to protect a canine bloodline (ἵνα τὰ γένη φυλάττωσιν), but the section is written in general terms. Xenophon makes no mention of any breed, and it is possible he is talking about the characteristics of individual dogs being bred with other dogs. If this is the case, the bloodline he is protecting is not one of breed, but of familial lineage. For a similar conclusion, based primarily on the iconographical and archaeological evidence, see P. Wapnish and B. Hesse, ‘Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? The Ashkelon Dog Burials’, Biblical Archaeologist 56.2 (1993), 64.

56 Xen. Cyr. 4.2: τοιαῦται αἱ κύνες. This suggests that these are not the characteristics of an ideal breed, but rather his advised characteristics of an ideal hunting dog; the type is not important.

57 Arist. Hist. an. 9.1.2, translation adapted from R. Cresswell, Aristotle's History of Animals in Ten Books (London, 1883).

58 D. J. Brewer, T. Clark, and A. Phillips, Dogs in Antiquity. Anubis to Cerberus. The Origins of the Domestic Dog (Warminster, 2001), 83. Interestingly, the Greek and Roman sources rarely offer a named breed for guard dogs, so Aristotle's attribution here is unique. Contra Brewer et al. (this note), 92, who missed this Aristotelian reference when claiming that the ancient sources do not suggest a specific breed was suited to guard duties.

59 In Forster's article he acknowledges that Herodotus fails to mention their purpose in the Persian army, but then asserts without clarification that it was ‘probable that they were used for military work as well as sport’ (Forster [n. 1], 114). See also Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E., Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, d'après les textes et les monuments, vol. I (Paris, 1873), 888–9Google Scholar; Luce (n. 5), 278; Fiennes, R. and Fiennes, A., The Natural History of Dogs (Garden City, NY, 1970), 33–4Google Scholar; Krishna, N., Sacred Animals of India (New Delhi, 2010), 102Google Scholar.

60 Xen. Cyn. 10.1.

61 The size and power is not explicitly described, but the hounds were expected to attack a boar and be capable of absorbing a physical attack in response: ibid., 10.9.

62 Ibid., 9.1.

63 Phot. Bibl. 72.

64 Arist. Gen. an. 746a34; Arist. Hist. an. 8.27.8; Pliny, NH 8.61.

65 Platt, Arthur, ‘On the Indian Dog’, CQ 3.4 (1909), 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Perhaps the best solution is not to consider these dogs like breeds in the modern sense, but as dog types much like the modern-day ‘pit bull type’.