War Dogs !!!

Norman McCormick · 28th January 2009, 08:30 PM

BEWARE vicious Guard Dog heating paws on kitchen stove.

Gonzalo G · 29th January 2009, 04:20 AM

Pallas, from your quotes, I see that you only have a primary source, which is Fray Bartolomé Las Casas. This quote comes from his little opuscule titled "Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias", title which we can traslate freely as "A Very Short Enumeration of the Destruction of the Indies", which was written in 1552 (I have the complete text). Also, I don´t have any doubt about the description of the behaviour of Vasco Nuñez de Balboa. In fact, I don´t have the slightiest doubt about the atrocities, unecessary cuelties, tortures, sistematic rapes and genocide from the conquistadors, which mexicans from my generation learnt about very well from childhood in the school. I can even make a more extensive description of them, quoting primary sources from spanish and indian witness. Only in the 16th Century Las Casas calculated more than 15 million killings of indians in the Caribbean and today´s Mexico. Not to mention the epidemics, which caused more million killings, leaving uninhabited extense areas, previously very populated.

My only point was about the race of the dogs (the kind of breed), and about the killing of war prisioners. Those were you main points in your post. The spaniards do used dogs along all the conquest, in the way already described, but I question they used mainly the spanish alano (alan?), but the mastiff. And yes, when the spaniards were determined to exterminate all the population of a specific village, or only all the men, they feed the dogs with the flesh of the dead. The point which I doubt, is they used man already taken previously as prisioners, or the practice of bringing slaves to war parties only to feed the dogs. That would be "uneconomic". To the eyes of the spaniards, indians were less than animals, but they had specific utilitarian aims in their killings, independently of their cuelty. In battle or at the end of battle they killed for a specific purpose, but they take captives only when determined to use them as slaves. Their greed was superior even to their cruelty, and this is much to say. But if you refer to war prisioners as the men surrendered and inmediately after battle, I agree with you. It seems that there is no much difference among this statements, but I only wanted to precise this points, as I am concerned with historic exactitude. It must be also said that the spanish crown and many churchmen had a deep distaste for many of this practices, and legislative measures, uneffective to a certain point, were taken to stop them. Maybe you can see this as too "academic", but many myths are reproduced in the taste of the "tremendist" or in the "justificationist" inclinations of some people. Maybe my companion forumites see me as too punctillous, but I am convinced that this a forum with a good academic level, and a space where we can discuss historic subjects pertaining to the matter of the threads, in order to know better. Thank you for your attention.
Regards

Gonzalo

Gonzalo G · 29th January 2009, 04:27 AM

Sorry David, I didn´t see your post when writting my last one. It was not my intention to be off-topic, but you know how digressions are made on the road.
My regards

Gonzalo

PD: Just to be precise: there is not any Jerónimo de Motolinia. Did you mean Fray Toribio de Benavente "Motolinia", or Fray Jerónimo de Mendieta, Manolo? Just to be precise, as I don´t mean a "cheap" attack to your erudition.

Gonzalo G · 29th January 2009, 04:57 AM

Some of my war dogs:

inveterate · 29th January 2009, 07:32 AM

Gonzalo, The top dog looks like an Aussie "Blue Heeler" or Cattle dog is it? Rod

Freddy · 29th January 2009, 07:56 AM

Police dogs are considered as weapons in Belgium. They can make a difference.

And yes.....it hurts, even with the suit on !

And here he finds the 'bad guy'

Meet Spike ! He's Wolf's back-up : a Malinois weighing about 45 kgs.

Atlantia · 29th January 2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy

Meet Spike ! He's Wolf's back-up : a Malinois weighing about 45 kgs.

He's very cute! Looks like Scooby-Doo

Gonzalo G · 6th February 2009, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inveterate

Gonzalo, The top dog looks like an Aussie "Blue Heeler" or Cattle dog is it? Rod

!Hi Rod, nice to know from you! Yes, she is a Blue Heeler, and she has three puppets, now about five months old. The father is another Blue Heeler from a friend. I don´t have pictures of them right now, thus I did not post their´s. I like this kind of dog. The other is a chow-chow with very bad temper...but not with me.

The belgium shepherd in fact is an excellent modern war dog, and a very useful companion for a police man. I like them better for such purposes than it´s german counterpart.

Gonzalo G · 6th February 2009, 04:02 AM

What about war mules? This sweet thing killed a mountain lion

28th January 2009, 08:30 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,633	BEWARE vicious Guard Dog heating paws on kitchen stove. Attached Images

29th January 2009, 04:27 AM	#3
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Sorry David, I didn´t see your post when writting my last one. It was not my intention to be off-topic, but you know how digressions are made on the road. My regards Gonzalo PD: Just to be precise: there is not any Jerónimo de Motolinia. Did you mean Fray Toribio de Benavente "Motolinia", or Fray Jerónimo de Mendieta, Manolo? Just to be precise, as I don´t mean a "cheap" attack to your erudition. Last edited by Gonzalo G; 29th January 2009 at 05:07 AM.

29th January 2009, 07:56 AM	#6
Freddy Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sint-Amandsberg (near Ghent, Belgium) Posts: 830	No war dogs, but still used as a weapon Police dogs are considered as weapons in Belgium. They can make a difference. And yes.....it hurts, even with the suit on ! And here he finds the 'bad guy' Meet Spike ! He's Wolf's back-up : a Malinois weighing about 45 kgs.

29th January 2009, 04:20 AM	#2
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Pallas, from your quotes, I see that you only have a primary source, which is Fray Bartolomé Las Casas. This quote comes from his little opuscule titled "Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias", title which we can traslate freely as "A Very Short Enumeration of the Destruction of the Indies", which was written in 1552 (I have the complete text). Also, I don´t have any doubt about the description of the behaviour of Vasco Nuñez de Balboa. In fact, I don´t have the slightiest doubt about the atrocities, unecessary cuelties, tortures, sistematic rapes and genocide from the conquistadors, which mexicans from my generation learnt about very well from childhood in the school. I can even make a more extensive description of them, quoting primary sources from spanish and indian witness. Only in the 16th Century Las Casas calculated more than 15 million killings of indians in the Caribbean and today´s Mexico. Not to mention the epidemics, which caused more million killings, leaving uninhabited extense areas, previously very populated. My only point was about the race of the dogs (the kind of breed), and about the killing of war prisioners. Those were you main points in your post. The spaniards do used dogs along all the conquest, in the way already described, but I question they used mainly the spanish alano (alan?), but the mastiff. And yes, when the spaniards were determined to exterminate all the population of a specific village, or only all the men, they feed the dogs with the flesh of the dead. The point which I doubt, is they used man already taken previously as prisioners, or the practice of bringing slaves to war parties only to feed the dogs. That would be "uneconomic". To the eyes of the spaniards, indians were less than animals, but they had specific utilitarian aims in their killings, independently of their cuelty. In battle or at the end of battle they killed for a specific purpose, but they take captives only when determined to use them as slaves. Their greed was superior even to their cruelty, and this is much to say. But if you refer to war prisioners as the men surrendered and inmediately after battle, I agree with you. It seems that there is no much difference among this statements, but I only wanted to precise this points, as I am concerned with historic exactitude. It must be also said that the spanish crown and many churchmen had a deep distaste for many of this practices, and legislative measures, uneffective to a certain point, were taken to stop them. Maybe you can see this as too "academic", but many myths are reproduced in the taste of the "tremendist" or in the "justificationist" inclinations of some people. Maybe my companion forumites see me as too punctillous, but I am convinced that this a forum with a good academic level, and a space where we can discuss historic subjects pertaining to the matter of the threads, in order to know better. Thank you for your attention. Regards Gonzalo

29th January 2009, 04:57 AM	#4
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Some of my war dogs:

29th January 2009, 07:32 AM	#5
inveterate Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 58	Gonzalo, The top dog looks like an Aussie "Blue Heeler" or Cattle dog is it? Rod

6th February 2009, 04:02 AM	#9
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	What about war mules? This sweet thing killed a mountain lion