I'm asking this out of boredomanyways I always notice that people praise lions as an icon to all the strongest animals in the animal kingdom, such as calling them "the king of the jungle" despite the fact that they do not live in the jungle, they live in dry land.dont get me wrong, I love lions myself especially the fact that I discovered #Leo is my moon sign after studying astrology in my spare time. however the praising that lions get are exaggerated and overestimated especially male lions. you see lions live in prides that consist of 1 male and 21 females. if you go to the dry land you are far more likely to get confronted by a female lion for the fact that they are the ones who go out and do most of the hunting while the male stays indoor sleeping all day waiting for the females to bring home everything they hunted. he then eats gets to eat first until he bloats to death and then the females get to eat whatever he left as leftover. so in other words lions are nothing but pimps since all they do is sleep, eat and fuck all day.the tiger in the other hand are much more superior if you think about it. not only are they they just as physically big but they are much more stronger and pack more muscles and their bites are a lot more powerful. their bite force is 1050 PSI while the lion is only 650 PSI; that's almost twice as strong. they are also more dependant too, male or female tigers are always out on their own and dont live in pride.till then I always wondered why do lions get more praise than tigers do?
In the animal world, why do lions get more respect than tigers?
Because they're cooler, look more imposing, and the way they hunt is more KING/Warrior like.
Tigers on average are larger than Lions yet still they stalk their prey amidst the leaves and go for small, weak, sick, old animals for their kill. Is more effective and ensures their food. But less impressive by far.
Lions straight up run up on a stampede of Gazelle and gran one when they see him coming. There's no sneaking around to do it. Are Lions sneaky too sometimes? For sure.
But the way they carry themselves, live, and hunt is that of the King of their Kingdom. Badass
Jaguars/panthars are more impressive and get more live than Tigers because they're smaller, yet more lethal than Tigers by effective numbers. They hunt exactly the same.
I forget the numbers but they're badasses for sure. They also go for bigger prey. Really hard to give Tigers more love than that outside preference of the look and size of Tigers.
Similarly interesting. The contrast relationship of Lions, Painted Dogs, and Hyenas in Africa. Any part of Africa predominantly filled with Painted dogs have low Lion numbers. Any high Lion area has low Painted dog numbers. All areas hyenas are kicked the fuck out because no one likes hyenas. Evil little shits lol
I think it is probably due to ancient Europe, and its proximity to northern Africa. After all, the Romans didn't throw people to the tigers in their Coliseum.
In Asia, on the other hand, the tiger is much more prevalent.
Humans have been interacting with lions for much, MUCH longer than we've been dealing with tigers. And not only do we see how they deal with humans, but with other animals, too: because they realize that that much weight can't keep speed up for long, they know that if you stay a certain distance away from a lion, you're safe, so you'll sometimes see prey animals near watering holes and the like doing what appears to be lining up, all keeping a certain minimum distance between themselves and lions, which makes it look like they're taking instruction- or orders. It's not hard to see where the idea of them being in charge came from.
Lions also work out in the open much more than tigers do (kind of an inevitability, given their environments, but still); a tiger seems more like a stalking serial killer to a lion's up-front murderousness. And they don't rent their females out, so it's more "sultan" than "pimp". And if size mattered, it would the GIRAFFE that was king of the jungle. The elephant would be its god.
I think it's not a question of lions getting too much, but tigers not getting enough. Too many people not reading Calvin and Hobbes as they grow up.
First of all, Tigers have more characteristics of a king compared to a lion and a tiger also lives in the jungle. So a Tiger does deserves to be called a king. A lion does not.
A tiger has a huge territory where other tigresses live with their cubs and form sub-territories and all those tigresses mate with the king of that territory, the dominant male tiger. He doesn’t have to rely on those females either unlike lions.
Also, lions can’t be considered kings because they often get stomped to death by other animals like buffalos within their own territory. When a lion is alone, he can be mauled by another animal any moment. (hyenas, wild dogs, hippos, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, warthogs)
Tigers though, almost always die of old age or by other tigers. No other animal in the territory of the male tiger ever dares to confront the dominant tiger. The cases of a tigers being killed by another animal are very low compared to lions even when they live alone. Even Asiatic elephants flee at the sight or sound of a tiger and his roar and bears too change their path if they spot a tiger’s pugmarks. There are no confirmed cases ever of any pack animals (Indian wolves, grey wolves, asiatic wild dogs, dholes) ever killing an adult male tiger. The tiger does however kill them frequently and snatches their kill.
Also, one tiger is far more superior to one lion in almost every single way except running speed. And you can’t argue about that because I have tons and tons of proof that tigers are superior.
There are a lot of cases of tigers hunting 1 ton gaur bulls alone. A tiger even killed an adult 35 year old rhino once. If the lion tried to do that, he would be gored to death.
I think the ancient europeans are responsible for giving so much fame to lions. This is evident by the fact that many european countries have lions as their national animal and lions aren’t even found in those countries. This shows what a lion fanatic they are
Also, that picture is completely inaccurate, the average African lion’s forelimb is 4-6 inches thinner compared to a Bengal Tiger and 3-6 inches thinner compared to a Siberian Tiger.
So the tiger is supposed to have bigger and bulkier arms unless you are comparing a freakishly large lion against a relatively smaller tiger
And they may have similar dimensions but when you compare them by weight, the Bengal Tiger is SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than any population of African Lion.
The average weight of the largest tiger population is 230kg and the average weight of the largest population of lions is around 195kg.
So the biggest tigers are 35kg bigger on average compared to the biggest lions and that is a big difference
I just can tell you that a lion was never the king of the jungle... because lions do natural not live in the jungle... wrong camouflage fur... which the tiger has bc he actual lives in the jungle
The assumption of being the king was invented bc lions roar really loud to mark their territory, which can be several sqaremiles... which was one of the first sights...
also lions are way harder to hunt than tigers bc tiger hunt as single, lions usual in a group of 4 up to 12 (single alpha male and several ladies who would die for the alpha bc he is the only male in the group)
The real king from my view would be the Li-ger... in nature they usual die early bc they can't get enough food to hold the body healthy... it's a crossbreed between a tiger mother and a lion father... more than double the size, way stronger, eyes ears smell and taste are about 40% better than both of the parents... but like I said, in nature, you won't see one, ever...
Siberian tigers are the largest non sterile cat alive today. (a liger being the largest cat period).
They don't have the strongest bite force though, thats actually a title given to the jaguar, who are also physically stronger than the larger lions and tigers, and lions have the weakest bite force among the 3.
Lions are used in allegory for rulership more though, for the simple reason that they have a pride.
They are the only living cats to do this. Most other species of cat are primarily solitary, with cheetahs and sometimes leopards being another exception, but not the the extent that lions are.
So ruling over others isn't a thing for tigers. King as a term, is being used to reference a lion being a ruler of his pride, not the entire ecosystem, thats more a misuse of the original meaning.
The biggest and fluffiest male lions also take the largest portions of food, quire a harem, and boss the other lions around while doing the least amount of work among the adults in the pride. Whats that sound like to you? Perhaps a king, his trophy wives, and his surfs?
I have always thought tigers were cooler than lions, they hunt alone and not in packs like lions. They share their food whereas lions are territorial with their food. They can incredible long term memory, better than humans and are much more athletic and powerful than a lion and would win in a fight any day. I think most people that associate with lions more just like their how the males manes look and tend to use it more for brand logos. The manes probably make them look more powerful to the plebs.
If you have the opportunity to do so, I would recommend your read the very interesting article about tigers in the December 2019 issue of National Geographic (pages 82 through 111).
Tigers were primarily hunted because of the properties some of their body parts have. Obviously, men in parts of this world still believe that bones have an aphrodisiac effect. They have been hunted down to almost extinction.
Did you know that there are currently more tigers in captivity in the US than the ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION of tigers living in the wild? Most of those captive tigers live in miserable conditions and a large number are disposed of like goods when they are cubs, after they become too dangerous to be pets.
In the US, he USDA lacks strict guidelines and is very lax on keeping tigers and other big cats as pets.
Probably due to them living in a more studied, filmed, documented place... Africa. There are thousands of wildlife films and documentaries filming the wildlife of Africa and following lion prides around and seeing them battle crocodiles for corpses near the rivers... attacking bulls and warthogs and zebras. Young lions battling the old lion to take over a pride, the female lions hunting and their teamwork, fighting against Hyenas.
Tigers are loners and are more elusive to find. They live in India and northern Asia and they aren't really filmed as often and documented.
I think it's because the male lion with it's mane look regal. The tiger just looks like a scary, alpha predator, more like a bandit.
Tigers are loners. Lions live in prides, and the most magnificent-looking male is usually the "king" who gets all the girls and contributes his genetics to the pride. A male lion not only looks regal, but has the air of a serene majesty. He "rules" over, watches over, and protects the pride, and is catered to by the rest.
Lions have been royal icons in North Africa, the Near East, and Europe (ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome), way before the term "King of the Jungle" was coined. Discovery of such ancient monuments by modern Europeans may have contributed to the mythology and been a motive to depict them on coats of arms.
King of the Jungle sounds like a British term, probably coined when aristocrats began going on trophy safaris.
I don't know how this "king of the jungle" started. But what I do know is strength and size aren't all that matter. Female lions are hunters because they usually are faster runners and male lions are warriors that defend the pack against hyenas or other lions because they are stronger. If by "lions" we consider a single lion then sure a tiger is far more badass. But it's the mentality of lions the fact that they all have responsibility that they all do their best for their survival that they aren't too proud to ask for help.
Tigers get more respect in asia. Lions are largely a mythical creature tied to western myths and history. Lions used to live in Europe up until roman times. There are lions living in the jungles of Africa and India. Perhaps it's a long memory of ice age lions which were huge and around at the time of the first civilisations.
I don't know. Tigers are vastly superior to lions if we think one on one, but lions are superior to tigers if they are in a pride. I think it's probably the fact that lions have been used in royal imagery for hundreds of years, it might be a result of that.
Lions are the King, and to quote one of the greatest poets of our time, Duke Nukem "Hail to the king, baby"
So what if he's a pimp? Tiger may have a 1050psi bite force, but that's over compensating, everyone knows it's not about the size of the bite force. All the lion's gotta say is "girls, I'm hungry" and the tiger's done or high tailing it.
There was once a "Tiger King".. look where that got him.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Lion is the largest carnivorous land animal... that's why the lion is "king of the jungle" ... really a misnomer, because lions live in grassland areas, not jungles.
The Elephant and Giraffe are larger animals but both are herbivores, they eat plants.
And the tiger is a big cat just a bit smaller than the lion, although occasionally they get together and produce ligers.
Lions originate in Africa where they run long distances to kill prey and they are out in the open and are easier to track, so they are associated with freedom and are easier to film than tigers, giving them more publicity
I don't know, I'm team bear myself but I'd vote tiger over lion every day. Lions are lazy AF. Tigers actually go to work every day. Lions just wait around for the plentiful food in Africa to stumble on by for them to get off their lazy butts to get some. Or they send their women out to do the hunting while they sleep. The elephant IS King. I've seen more lions killed by elephants than the other way around. Lions just have fashionable hair. They're not kings of shyt.
Oh it is not like that. Over India Tiger itself is the national animal and they get far more respect than Lion. And yet Lion get respect too as they are called king of jungle here too. They get equal respect. And by the way I'm a Leo too!
Because lions live in groups and one is a leader while tigers don't. Kings don't necessarily have to be the strongest one in the kingdom. Lions are not only strong but they just know how to manage things better than tigers so that's why they are considered kings stereotypically.
You got this totally wrong. Tigers are stronger in terms of strength and agility and there is a ton of research which proves that.
And in a tiger territory, there is a male tiger who is the king of that territory and there are 3-4 tigresses living in his territory and all have cubs with that male tiger.
And unlike lions, no other animal is even able to confront the tiger unlike lions who often get stomped to death by buffalos.
@OneManOnly01 I never said lions are stronger in strength. What I'm talking about are tigers being solitary animals www.worldwildlife.org/.../where-do-tigers-live-and-other-tiger-facts so they don't really live with other animals of the same species other than their family while lions live in big groups. Like what i said "Kings don't necessarily have to be the strongest one in the kingdom." There are rogues stronger than the kings but kings are better at making armies. Tigers are like those stronger rogues who don't work with big groups.
Grizzly bears are stronger than tigers? Siberian Tigers live with Ussuri Brown bears which are even bigger than grizzlies. But tigers kill those bears all the time, and the bears can seldom do the same to the tigers. If you are thinking of arguing with that. I have tons and tons of proof of that because I have researched on it for years
And Tigers have more characteristics of a king compared to a lion and a tiger also lives in the jungle. So a Tiger does deserves to be called king of the jungle. A lion does not.
A tiger has a huge territory where other tigresses live with their cubs and form sub-territories and all those tigresses mate with the king of that territory, the dominant male tiger. He doesn’t have to rely on those females either unlike lions.
Also, lions can’t be considered kings because they often get stomped to death by other animals like buffalos within their own territory. When a lion is alone, he can be mauled by another animal any moment. (hyenas, wild dogs, hippos, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, warthogs)
Tigers though, almost always die of old age or by other tigers. No other animal in the territory of the male tiger ever dares to confront the dominant tiger. The cases of a tigers being killed by another animal are very low compared to lions even when they live alone. Even Asiatic elephants flee at the sight or sound of a tiger and his roar and bears too change their path if they spot a tiger’s pugmarks. There are no confirmed cases ever of any pack animals (Indian wolves, grey wolves, asiatic wild dogs, dholes) ever killing an adult male tiger. The tiger does however kill them frequently and snatches their kill.
@OneManOnly01 But that still doesn't remove the fact that lions had always been called "king of the jungle" and the fact that tigers are still solitary animals so there for i gave an explanation why.
It's also the same how humans often get stomped, eaten killed or whatever by other animals but still had a civilization that scares animals away.
Dude do you seriously believe everything you see on google and nat geo?😂😂 Nat Geo shows a lot of bullshit and I can prove that in less that a minute. And those unreliable sites, well they are already not a credible source anyway.
A tiger regularly hunts 1 ton gaur bulls. Can you show me any case of a grizzly bear hunting anything that weighs a ton?
@OneManOnly01 Really what does that even have to do with my life? Is it really necessary for people to have time to see it for themselves when they can just be focusing on their lives? And so what if they're called kings of the jungles? Even if they're not considered to be, i couldn't care less. All im doing is giving an explanation to a question pretending it really is the case.
@OneManOnly01 Lions are still considered predators. I can also say humans can't even scare animals because of the fact that they're much weaker. Unless there are groups of them
Okay I’m not gonna tell you to believe me. But can you argue with the likes of Ullas Karanth and Melvin. E. Sunquist? They have published tons of scientific literature to prove this so you can’t argue with that.
And would you believe these dumb sites over scientific studies and research journals?
And I have a ton of proof to show that tigers regularly hunt one ton bulls. There are at least 20 cases that I can show right at this moment.
But can you show me even one confirmed case of a grizzly bear hunting anything that weighs over one ton? No!
@OneManOnly01 Appealing to authority doesn't help either because anyone using the publisher of that google and nat geo articles to try to make their claims seem even more valid. And it's also easy to call something dumb while calling yours a "scientific research" like what anyone else can just do. Like what I said, what makes you think you're better than google? Ullas Karanth and Melvin. E. Sunquist are wise enough not to sound like a moron like you who calls anyone's stupid but not yours.
So your example saying "Hyenas are also predators, does that make them king?" how does that even make it thesame to what I said? Did i even say just because they're predators, makes them kings? That's a strawman argument if i ever heard one.
Nat Geo said the AVERAGE length of Siberian Tigers is 400cm and they are over 5 feet tall at shoulder height. Do you know that not even the largest tiger ever found was that large and Nat Geo said those are the AVERAGE dimensions of Siberian Tigers😂😂
@OneManOnly01 Then that's another example. The grizzly bear im talking about is besides the point and of course there are always exceptions. The topic here is still lions. I see you just wanna divert to that topic because of what you read so far. Like really who are you trying to flex at when I don't care about those kinds of things. What still stands is i'm giving an explanation why it's called "king of the jungle" even if you disagree with it.
Whaat? You’re such a hypocrite. YOU are diverting the topic. You said Nat Geo are not dumb. I PROVED Nat Geo are dumb. And now when you’ve been proven wrong you’re making excuses and changing the topic.
Call yourself a moron for arguing with me because I have more than 3 gigabytes of reseach and observations of tigers and lions stored on my cloud storage. And I’ve researched about them for years.
You on the other hand, don’t even have a clue yet you are arguing with me and pretending to be an expert.
@OneManOnly01 The thing is anyone can still have their own criteria on what they consider as kings so it doesn't always have to be strength. So what if there's a culture that really do believe lions are kings? What are you gonna do about it? Yes they're not dumb because they're so much better than the average person and they do make better money than you so tell me they're dumb again and show me how much you got?
Like your story saying you have "3 gigabytes" of research proves you anything. That's just an anecdote at that point and no smart people who just brag about what they study. Really if you say you're a biology major then im the leader of the UN. Now what? I'm not even bother about arguing with what those biology researchers have to say but i'm simply debunking you.
You can’t even debunk or even argue with a 5 year old. It is clearly visible how butthurt you are now😂
And tigers are better in every characteristic of a king compared to a lion which are-
More strength, more respect and display of fear from fellow inhabitant animals, more intelligence (many proofs for that as well), same number of subordinate followers.
That makes tigers more king-like than lions in almost every characteristic that a king is supposed to have
You can have any dumb opinion you want. Facts don’t care about your opinions
@OneManOnly01 Well i see you just wanna resort to calling someone butthurt instead of sticking to the main point. And the fact that you're basically name calling like calling something stupid just ironically show how butthurt you are. Also more like butthurt as to why there still are people who likes to consider lions being the kings of the jungles that's why you resort to that old cheap tactic no brainers would do.
They're "better" but like what I said, there are different criteria for judging. Knights can fight better than kings but they aren't kings for the same reason how some people view kings. It's not even an objective thing to consider something "king of the jungle" really you can do it with tigers like I care. But that doesn't remove how everyone have different criteria for judging.
Also yeah you can give facts about their aspects but who exactly is saying tigers are the kings of the jungles are facts? You're the one saying that which ironic is something subjective you like to call facts.
@OneManOnly01 "More strength, more respect and display of fear from fellow inhabitant animals, more intelligence (many proofs for that as well), same number of subordinate followers." then that would be the case for humans. We should've been stronger than tigers. But in the end, we dominate them anyways.
@OneManOnly01 Also you're right about me who can't argue with a 5 year old. Because their brains are too small for big words. This is why I argue with grown ups not 5 year olds like you.
We aren’t stronger but we are the other three things. You’re making yourself look dumb. And if you’re put unarmed in the tiger’s jungle kingdom, you’ll indeed be terrorised by the mere thought of the tiger dumb man.
And you also you proved how stupid you are by guessing my age from the screen of your phone as if you’ve got telekinetic powers.
@OneManOnly01 Same goes for how other people sees lions. For you not seeing the principles, you don't consider yourself dumb? When it doesn't even take a genius. Yes a man can get terrorized by a tiger but as a group, despite how week humans are, we're still able to expand our society and dominate the world. So yes it still shows that strength isn't the only thing to be considered as kings. If you don't consider lions as kings, guess what? that's not a fact. That's just an opinion just like how one consider lions as kings.
Oh really it's ironic when someone who assumed i'm butt hurt is saying that. So yeah that kinda backfire your own logic.
@OneManOnly01 And i also gave you the principles of my examples despite the characteristics you're talking about. There are still other characteristics and features a lion has tigers don't have. And for you not seeing the factors, it's still ironic when you say that. It's just like how you fail to process it's all subjective to consider something as a king. Also no one is saying tigers are inferior to lions. So would you scroll up and read again? I litterally said "Kings don't necessarily have to be the strongest one in the kingdom." which is something your brain can't process
@OneManOnly01 What you consider it to be sure. But do I care? That doesn't still remove the fact that saying it's a king is still nothing more but an opinion.
Sure the main is one. The fact that is a lion is also one. Then? really i just need to mention something so obvious for someone with such a small brain who can't see it.
@OneManOnly01 Like how you didn't even see the obvious facts I mentioned. Which is why you just wanna resort straight to that name calling of yours. So yeah it still backfired your own logic
So now what? Got anything else better to say? Because i'm gonna predict the next has anything to do with just simply calling anyone stupid due to your ego being hurt like how easy to read you are.
I blame the Lion King movies... You should look up Ligers - they're a lion-tiger hybrid, but much, much bigger than either (although they do have very stumpy legs).
I got Moon and Venus in Leo. But because lions are more attractive, social and appear less threatening than a tiger. People enjoy their majestic beauty and upper status.
When we think about wildlife we think Africa. Most docs are flimed in Africa where lions "rule" . Tigers on the other hand live in the jungles and are more illusive , so it doesn't quite fit that narrative.
I think it's because lions live in Africa and Middle East, so ancient European civilisations knew them, and admired them. Tigers live in East Asia, so Europeans didn't have much contact with then.
You're better off standing tall, making noise and facing them. There's a good chance they'll leave you alone. But if you run, you are prey. You have zero chance of outrunning them.
@horatiohornblower of course i rather die running from tnose things cause 700-800 pounds jumps on my back ill fall knocked out and then die if bleeding out while im in my sleep rather then taking the chance of being torn up and dying a slow death lol
Who told you that? Tigers take less time to finish their prey compared to lions and they also use a neck bite and they have stronger bite so their neck bite kills the prey quicker compared to lions
I meet up with a young cougar in the city. We both meet, both eyes got big and both of us walk away quitley. If you meet anyone lion or tiger best be safe in Jesus you are dead
@PebbleMoo that's not true at all, Lions more superior and that's facts, check out the most violent lion gang on YouTube and you'll see how bloody and ruthless they are more than any tiger. Lions are tougher.
And you’re 28? Hahaha have fun dying alone single. You’re a sad little girl who just says things. Facts. Blocking you now. A You’re wrong and I’m right B You’re a waste of my time who isn’t good enough to talk to me C Get raped by black dick D Bye E Blocked F 🖕🏻🖕🏻
A lion vs a tiger? No, one on one the tiger is more likely to win, but the lions would win in reality, even though they are weaker, because it's never just one lion.
It's usually like 10 or 20 of em, and ironically enough, the females, who are even smaller, are more likely to kill the tiger than the male lion, simply because they outnumber males 10 to 1 and tend to attack as a group to make up for smaller size.
@TheSpaceGnome thank you for your nice reply at least you gave your facts and didn't bully me lol it was funny honestly but you're smart so I get your facts about the lion vs tiger topic.
@TheSpaceGnome aw *hugs you* 💜 you're so right he went overboard and honestly I didn't understand why but I will ignore him, they're just big cats and it's not a big deal at all.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions