Talk:The dogs of war (phrase)

Untitled

Shakespeare was in fact referring to "dog" in its sense as a restraining mechanism, in common use in the military and shipbuilding and certainly familiar to his audeience of dockyard workers and artisans. The dogs he referred to was the restraints on war, not war itself or its perpetrators. There never were any "war dogs" in England and any of Shakespeare's audience would have thought you were a loony if you said there were. Note vthe phrase "dogs of war" was used, not "war dogs". This whole myth of canine war dogs in this play is the result of generations of "scholars" who know all about canine dogs but nothing about the shipbuilding, engineering or military trades and insist on assigning the first and only meaning for dog that comes into their heads. I refer the unconvinced to the articles Doglock and Dog (engineering). Rcbutcher (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source that contradicts the five already cited in the article? Neither of the two WP articles mentioned by User:Rcbutcher makes any reference to the phrase. Notwithstanding that the previous discussion of this issue took place on the wrong page, the point there, that all two-hundred of Shakespeare's mentions of "dog" bar one relate to the four-legged variety, as does the main citation (from the OED no less), shouldn't be ignored. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One could argue reasonably well that Shakespeare intentionally phrased it so it could be interpreted both ways - wordplay is common in his plays. I think this alternative meaning merits mention in the article, even if only in that context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.171.253 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"One could argue" is a good enough definition of original research, which isn't allowed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the ideas that it's syntactically correct to interpret both ways, that the line would have been understood in both ways at the time, and that Shakespeare often used wordplay similar this don't lend enough merit to the issue to include it in the article, that's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.61.98 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You have it: unless a reliable source lends the suggestion the same merit as you do, that's correct. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Rcbutcher all the way. Shakespeare was not needlessly wordy and would not have written "dog of war" to mean "war dog" even if such a thing had been commonly known at the time. The meaning of dog as a simple restraining device in Shakespeare's time referred to wedges or chocks to keep something from moving, usually a parked cart. The most horrific traffic accidents for many centuries had been those caused by a runaway cart that had slipped its dogs, careening downhill out of control and destroying anything in its path. A great image for war that caps Mark Antony's meditation on indiscriminate carnage, and in this sense it was immediately and viscerally understood by everyone in the audience. Speculating here, but note there is no etymology for the English or Old English word dog? But since dogs were probably first used to keep boars, bears, and big cats at bay for hunters, perhaps the name "dog" is somehow derived from their original function.Vendrov (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Cliché

Why is the sentence claiming that the phrase has "entered into general usage, in books, music, film and television" and "is now regarded as a cliché" cited by something written 73 years ago? Anyone one else see all the myriad of problems with that? -- 67.182.14.249 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The demeaning image

I have removed the demeaning image of some irrelevant British caricature, which represents the legitimate and heroic fight for independence of the Balkan states as "the dogs of war." Not the least because it does not illustrate the Shakespearean phrase correctly.--24.135.64.29 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mercenaries

I am no scholar, but it strikes me as possible that the phrase »Dogs of war« refers to mercenaries. »Havoc« thus harmonizes with the, as I've understood it, negative image connected with mercenary soldiers. It is the mercenaries, the dogs of war who engage in pillaging and looting - regular soldiers have honour and aren't connected with such activates.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps dogs of war as in mercenaries is much younger?

Joeldaalv (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Havoc has a definite meaning, namely, indiscriminate carnage. The Dogs of War about "good guy" mercenaries was terrific film, but the title was a misread of Shakespeare's wonderful metaphor (dogs referring to the chocks that keep a cart from freewheeling out of control). I'm pretty sure Frederick Forsyth twisted the phrase knowingly. As for mercenaries, they were more likely to rely on skill in maneuver than bloody attrition in Shakespeare's time, and were highly regarded as professionals.Vendrov (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Which Character Delivers the Line?

How is this information not in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.130.50 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

'Italy'

I refer to the first paragraph of the synopsis, which mentions Italy.

Not only did Italy not exist at the time of the Roman republic/empire, it didn't even exist when Shakespeare wrote about it 1500 years later. The paragraph should either refer to 'the Republic', or 'the Empire', possibly 'the peninsular', but I'm not enough of a Roman scholar to know which, so I haven't made the edit. Adagio67 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)