Historical 21 



The reason dogs were found useful for the attack during 

 the early ages was on account of the absence at that period 

 of gunpowder. A warrior would be preceded by a slave 

 leading a fierce dog, which would attack at word of com- 

 mand, and while it engaged in close combat with the enemy, 

 the master would dash into the conflict with every chance 

 of success. The Romans trained their dogs to attack men 

 armed with swords. They also had a system of training 

 whereby the dogs were held, while their masters were 

 engaged in mock combat, being attacked by soldiers armed 

 with swords. The dogs were then loosed, with the idea 

 that these should rush in and defend the master against 

 the attacker. This form of training would, of course, make 

 the dogs very savage, and very brave. Strabo says the 

 Chiefs of Gaul had bodyguards of dogs armed with coats 

 of mail. 



When opposing armies both possessed dogs of war, the 

 canine conflicts must have been prodigious. 



When gunpowder was invented and used, the attacking 

 duties of the dogs were no longer required, and they were 

 then employed for defensive purposes by giving warning 

 of the approach of the enemy. 



The intelligence and fidelity of the dog has been recog- 

 nized as a valuable asset in the protection of person and 

 property from time immemorial, and military commanders 

 have appreciated this during many previous centuries, 

 and have utilized dogs with their armies. Plutarch and 

 Pliny both mention war dogs in their writings. The dogs 

 were employed as a means of defence against enemy attack, 

 and also as actual weapons of attack. They were used 

 thus at the Siege of Mantcnea, and King Cambyses also 

 employed large numbers in his campaign in Egypt. 



There is a story related that when the King of the Spartans 



