Venatio lion vs tiger

[Guest Silver]

Hi everyone,

-

I love the Roman culture for it's sophisicated deligence an brilliance of recording million's of memorabilia, I have found some intresting artifact's on leo an tigris and I wanted to know exactly who was usually the victor in the arena when these 2 mighty beast enter'd combat, I wanted to ask people that were directly in Rome that could have more that I can see my self. I am very familiar that it is a toss up being they are anatomically the same cat but I'm sure there must have been more memorabilia by the hundred's documented of the past. I am familiar with Martial peter's to have said that he saw a tigris kill a lion but had the word's unexpexted as in unknown at any time an era for that to have been witnnesed, plus a art artifact that was done by Mosiac, was the only 2 thing's I found for the tiger's side. Which I really do not care for an opinion on the matter, beingi this day an age it is more sought out to preserve an protect these majestic animal's from extintion, so just the histiorical artifact's please.

-

I found alot more for the lion's side though, such as these...

 

-

 

-

.

[Guest Silver]

Here's a few more I found from Rome...

 

-

-

-

[caldrail]

An interesting subject. There's been some study on the capability of big cats, even with reference to activity in american gold rush towns where animal fights were staged to stave off boredom, though in those cases the lion always lost to the bear because the cats skeleton really isn't that strong. There seems to be something very symbolic in these artistic recreations of a fight between lion and tiger - almost as if the Romans are attempting to stage 'gladiatorial' fights between powerful carnivores of roughly equal stature. That they managed to get the cats to fight at all is something of a grisly achievement - at least one animal trainer was executed in front of a colosseum crowd because his animals skulked around the periphery of the arena in terror of the strange enviroment they found themselves and refused to fight.

[Guest Silver]

To:Princeps

 

I know a great ordeal of those story's my friend, an to be honest you are hearing decade's of altering the story little by little. Until you have what many think was the bear's won...if you have read the originals you'd have known that was far from the truth, Bear's were idlelized by the California people, they stated themselve's that bear's were so expensive they never risked losing money, they alway's sawed off the bull's horn's an exaughsted the bull before even turning in the fresh bear. Along with a lion not lion{s} it was a broken down circus lion that was abondin from a circus. Back then they cost a hefty amount, so by the circus leaving the lion it had to have been ill an sickly.

 

In the old story's which are in handwriting in a diary... not any site, well atleast I know not any site of credability to their story, every site has very off topicness of the original'. Which stated when american settler's came in an questioned rebel's an worker's of california if they were to wagder so much money they insisted the fight's to be fair. So in doing so, they kept what was natrual to the bull's there horn's an also there vitality, it was said bull's gored bear's threw while dragging them along the inner wall's of the arena's, an stomped them to death, while in most horrid agony call's of the bear had children screaming an women fainting in the brute power of the bull. It was getting so predictable they started pitting the bear with horese's an the horse who was usually tied to a peg and now fight's kept fair by american's the horse was nobley troting an with a single kick broke the bear's jaw's...many other animal's fought bear's such as Puma's an they were all alibied to favor other animal's until bear's lost so much they were only permited to fight donkey's, until the sport than died out. It's also in logical form too, while weight's are over exaggerated about brown bear's they average merely 400-600, 800 to a 1,00 as very very big, an 1,100-1,500 were just estimation's showing in captivivty even a 1,200 pound bear is very un-healthy an not mobile as there lighter compadres'. While bulls' average 1,400 to 2,000 an can sore to 3,000 an up, there were no breaking of neck's, which is physically impossible for a 600- 800 pound male adult bear to break a bull at 1.800 pound's, that can run faster an catush's with other bull's at 40Mph hwile merely shaking it off as rutine, they are built for those exact type of impact's. In matter of fact there is around 10 to 1 of bull's killing bear's which I can provide if you liked to see them.

 

I have around ten account's my self of just Puma's killing bigger black and brown bear's if you'd like to view them, along with not californian's who invaded most indian's but Indian's them selve's that alway's said the moatian lion alway's was the victor against there brown bear's in the wild, an a few cite's from the california book it self, having found a die-ing Puma and near him a stone dead adult grizzley bear with his throat bitten off.

 

Now for your bone's formaility of being densar is completey false, in fact lion's have densar bone's in certain part's of the body. while bear's have cavivty's in there own making them more brittle...while lion's have less bone marrow in there inner wall's of the bone, which keep's it's durability while increasing acrabobatical speed's in areo dynamic's. I do have the chart of there bone density if you wish to view it your self, showing the only part the bear has densar bone's is the femur, while everything else is basically at the same ratio of 1.27, the other's have the lion with stronger an densar bone's. Bear's have more Robust bone's but not densar.

 

Bear's are very poor fighter's as well, they are not striker's they are more of sumo wrestler's, I do have a few account's of lion's killing bigger brown and white polar bear's as well, here I guess I'll show you...

 

 

Lion kill

[caldrail]

Now for your bone's formaility of being densar is completey false, in fact lion's have densar bone's in certain part's of the body. while bear's have cavivty's in there own making them more brittle...while lion's have less bone marrow in there inner wall's of the bone, which keep's it's durability while increasing acrabobatical speed's in areo dynamic's. I do have the chart of there bone density if you wish to view it your self, showing the only part the bear has densar bone's is the femur, while everything else is basically at the same ratio of 1.27, the other's have the lion with stronger an densar bone's. Bear's have more Robust bone's but not densar.

 

Be that as it may, the bear is more formidable - we have recordss of bears as named star competitors in the arena but I can't off-hand recall the same for lions, whcih although powerful carnivores in their own right, were usually sent into the arena in numbers and difficult to recognise individually. In any case, the bear is the more powerful, and this was proven in the more recent contests.

[Guest Silver]

Hello mate,

-

You know when you alibi something you really need to show proof, I realy dont know any recent par=tay's where a bear killed a full grown african lion. I know of 3 incident's in the past yet they were hardly fair.

Again here is a alibi having lion's win over bears

-

-

The Memoirs of Cleopatra

3.

[caldrail]

You know when you alibi something you really need to show proof

Hello mate. You know that when you challenge you need to realise that your perceived argument may be based on biased or incomplete sources. As for the recent par-tay, check out the amercian gold rush of the 19th century. Those miners got a little bored and set up animal fights for entertainment. Hey... The bears won. Every time.. But then cougars were in short supply in Europe and Asia. Not that it matters. In the case you state, the cat attacked from an optimal position. That was far less likely in the arena.

 

In any case Martial tells us of the difficulty of getting lions to actually fight. Bears seemed to take to it rather more easily and as I said, the Romans sometimes made heroes of them.

 

I mean no insult buddy, but you might impress me more with some historical study.

[Guest Silver]

You know when you alibi something you really need to show proof

Hello mate. You know that when you challenge you need to realise that your perceived argument may be based on biased or incomplete sources. As for the recent par-tay, check out the amercian gold rush of the 19th century. Those miners got a little bored and set up animal fights for entertainment. Hey... The bears won. Every time.. But then cougars were in short supply in Europe and Asia. Not that it matters. In the case you state, the cat attacked from an optimal position. That was far less likely in the arena.

 

In any case Martial tells us of the difficulty of getting lions to actually fight. Bears seemed to take to it rather more easily and as I said, the Romans sometimes made heroes of them.

 

I mean no insult buddy, but you might impress me more with some historical study.

-

-

Um I just showed you the abstract's did you not read them? They are from the gold mine-ing story's, you have to show the proof mate of which one your talking about, I dont mean the secoundary source or the revised one's in typing, I mean the hand writing diary which I personally seen a good share amount of them, which I dought you seen any at all beside's the twisted one's, or else you'd already know what happned, how can you ploroalize everytime? Ther was only one lion, hav yourself contact this person that typed out everytime an tell them to tel me where were they getting there lion's from, how were they imported, you know...detail's? Hmph there was only one, an I mentioned him already, here I'll show you some old article's an abstract's of your supposedly bear that won every time, here...

-

-

? An actual bear-and-panther fight in the central coast region was watched in the 1840's. Three hunters, originally seeking a female grizzly with cubs, had been grounded by the escape of their horses. Going cautiously along a creek bordered by willows and grapevines, they approached a waterfall that plunded into a green, transparent pool over which a large tree had fallen.

? ? ? ? ?With the sounds of the torrent came . . . the growls of two wild beasts, alternate and furious.

? ? ? ? On the right hand, squatted on one end of the bridge, was a small, male grizzly, and opposite to him, at the other end, a fully grown panther, who was tearing up the bark of the trunk, and gathering and relaxing herself as if for a spring. The alternate roaring of these infuriated beasts filled the valley with horrible echoes. We watched them a minute or more. The bear was wounded, a large flap of flesh torn over its left eye, and the blood dripping into the pool. My companion bade me shoot the tiger, while he [Colin Preston] took charge of the bear. We fired at the same instant; but, instead of falling, these two forest warrior rushed together at the centre of the bridge, the bear rising and opening to ceceive the tiger, who fixed her mighty jaws in the throat of her antagonist, and began kicking at his bowels with the force of an engine. At the instant both rolled over, plunged, and disappeared. We could see them struggling in the depths of the pool; bubbles of air rose to the surface, and the water became dark with gore. It may have been five minutes or more before they floated up dead, and their bodies rolled slowly down the stream. (Anon., 1857 : 823.,

 

California Grizzly)

-

Another natural fight between grizzly and mountain lion was described in the San Bernardino Argus of 1873 (Ingersoll, 1904 : 371):

Some hunters were witness to a desperate fight in the San Jacinto mountains, the other day, between a mountain lino and a bear. The fight is described as terrific. The superior strength of the beat easily enabled him to throw his antagonist down, but the latter used his paws and jaws so fearfully that the bear could not keep him under. Both animals were covered with blood. They fought till both were exhausted, when the lion dragged himself off to the jungle, leaving the bruno in possession of the field.

 

~ California Grizzly

-

-

You see those ^^^ that's more of just Puma's you know...160 pound's? They held there own an even killed brown an black bear's 2-4X there own size, that's more comendable than anything I ever heard of, an in alfread court's circus a lion dicapated a puma name Keller in one swipe, he did somthing bear's could have done, but dident, there are way more creditavle storie's of puma's killing brown bear's, as I said size hold's a factor, but will power an gameness hold's a higer margin of killing the other... big cat's are just designed to kill that's basically all they do, while bear's has the liberty of eating other things beside's meat, so they are not prone to alway's kill, they would rather avoid a convertation more than provooke it.

-

Again the grizzley bear need's not fear anything, but he isint the lord among brute's, big cat's are the supreme fighter's Puma's, Tiger's Jaguar's, Lion's have all killed bear's more than vice versa, an that buddie is a fact. I can produce around 60 account's tiger's have killed bear's, al most 20 account's of Puma's killing black an brown bear's an almost 20 account's of lion's killing Brown and white bear's, that's almost a 100 altogether, can you produce that much? I dought you can even half that....Even if we'd to seperate them back into catagorie's of who killed who more often, lion's have been known to have asiatic bear's for century's in india as a small percentage of there diet's, not competition but just diet's. They dident only win in the roman arena's they won in the wild, an even for other culture pitting's such as england here's one of a King that pitted animal's of the vareity...

-

.lion strangle?s an kills 1 out of 7 bears

http://books.google.com/books?id=V0JSVvpZvYYC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=menageries+lion+fights+fighting+kills+tiger&source=bl&ots=ZczqFNg_1H&sig=TQznMOxQv5-vXhywYepZXvtWtbw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-I8GUNnoI8Hi2QWCvKnOBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK

-

There's pretty much every culture in the world that has big cat's as there highest healdry of combat in inter-speice's relation's, an it was done by a German sceintist's who traveled the world an recorded historical information of what animal of each culture was feared the most, idlelized the most, respected the most, hunted the most and heald the most in regusard's as the top predator of there civilization's surrounding's, here's that chart that was recorded from year's and year's of study's...

-

These were the results (Grey=big cats):

-

An nice picking a needle out of the hay stack, Martial peter's is merely one of thousand's if not not ten's of thousand's of alibi's that have been documented by ephigram's, remnent an scripture's that all said lion's were the most fercious an willing animal's that put on the most exellent fighting display in the arena's of Rome.

-

I'm curious in eactly what do you have to even match 1/4th the account's an data I have, proving that lion's are superior to bear's. beside's your faulty, twisted an unreliable credabilty.... of hear say.

[Melvadius]

I would remind everyone of one thing. We can be fairly certain that no Roman would have been able to consider matching a 'Californian Grizzly' with any other animal let alone a 'puma'.

 

So far as what the Romans had available to them to match in the arena is concerned settign aside questions of which particular species/ sub-species were available the real question is how large an animal were they able to capture AND transport. OK we know that some fairly large animals could be found in non-native parts of the Empire but were really dangerous specimens always transported as full sized-animals or was the more usual practice to transport them as relatively immature specimens and then keep until mature/ someone paid enough for them to be used earleir. If it was the last case then any match is likely to have usually been between relatively undersized specimens - so comparisons with modern examples where fully mature specimens could eb easily transport is fairly moot.

 

We cannot get a real idea of scale from either wall paintings or mosaics and I am uncertain what if any archaeological work has been done to identify the relative maturity of any animal remains found in association with arena's - Klingon anyone else?

[Guest Silver]

I would remind everyone of one thing. We can be fairly certain that no Roman would have been able to consider matching a 'Californian Grizzly' with any other animal let alone a 'puma'.

 

So far as what the Romans had available to them to match in the arena is concerned settign aside questions of which particular species/ sub-species were available the real question is how large an animal were they able to capture AND transport. OK we know that some fairly large animals could be found in non-native parts of the Empire but were really dangerous specimens always transported as full sized-animals or was the more usual practice to transport them as relatively immature specimens and then keep until mature/ someone paid enough for them to be used earleir. If it was the last case then any match is likely to have usually been between relatively undersized specimens - so comparisons with modern examples where fully mature specimens could eb easily transport is fairly moot.

 

We cannot get a real idea of scale from either wall paintings or mosaics and I am uncertain what if any archaeological work has been done to identify the relative maturity of any animal remains found in association with arena's - Klingon anyone else?

-

-

Just Exactly how big do you think A California grizzley is? I hope you dont think there 1,500 pound's an up. Grizzley bear's arent as big as the media present's them as, Brown bear's {average} just a little bigger than lion's an tiger's at 400-600 pound's, 700-1,000 is pretty rare in the wild, an that's border line a bit big, 1,200 pound's is obese for a brown bear, the 1,500 pounder's is by no mean's scientifically proven, they were never weighed in the past they were merely estimation's, beside's bear's have the omnivore geno, they have the same capability's of reaching those weight's of a thousand pound's because they can store different nuitrent's from other food's, a 1,200 pound bear would be almost as useless in a fight aginst a 800 pound prime bear, as a 800 pound human is to a prime fit 260 pound human.

-

Wiki, an secoundary site's are prety dam disrespect to people out in the field that actually weigh them, you'll find no source of scientist or zoologist that will confirm you weight's of a bear pass 1,200 pound's as healthy, they will have mobile issue's an fatigue problem's, which would strain there joint's an bone's.

-

Again Bear's arnt that big as the media over exagerate's them as, dont get me wrong they are big boy's out there but we are talking a whole sale as average here, they are merely right around the corner from lion's and tiger's, here's your average brown bear in comparison to a lion...

-

Lion's an tiger's have a bigger skull for a harder bite, along with bigger an denser teeth, here...

An lion's skull's are averagly bigger than tiger's^^^

 

-

Yellow stone grizzley bear

[Melvadius]

Interesting though the statistics you have provided may be they are out of context since they do not answer what I see as the underlying question of is there any archaeological evidence for the size and maturity of beasts involved in such combats.

[Melvadius]

Silver,

 

Although you have edited your last posts you seem to have missed the point of my original post I hope this isn't deliberate so would point you to the forum guideleines. Disagree with repondents by all means but discuss the point NOT the poster and keep this thread polite.

 

To go back to my original question you ask for citations but in my view the examples you have provided have a major problem regarding a Roman venatio since they tend to be modern extract and so far as I can see heavily biased to examples involving combat with animals from the New World.

 

Admittedly it is not a topic that I have read extensively but so far as I am aware ancient writers do not provide much information on it except in generalities thus my question if any research been done factoring up the size and musclature of animal remains found in proximity to arena's - I suspect the answer is negative.

[Guest Silver]

If your looking for weight's, anatomy, attribute's, social pattern's... you have to look of the animal's in there native origin's they were imported from Zooligist an Scientist in the field of animal cenus's, not the arena's, they were imported not indegous, science has proven in morphology need's hundred's of thousand's of year's to change a speice's adaptation an physiology, so a Atlas Bear from Morrocco will not have changed from it's original Biology with it was less then one thousand year's, no chance in hell that's possible. You dont assest nothing, your just giving excuses of something you wanted to hear but are not getting the answer because your question's are not in comphrensionable, you are just looking if bears's won plain an simple, a human in the gladitorial has less than 0.5% change over a thousand year's in physiology an mental capacity, they learned more as time went along by the sole reason of documentation, not getting miraculesly smarter for no reason at all, even people of modern day's dont know how to read or write because they were not tought in that way.

-

Again your not asking anything of comprension, more of denial of not accepting just not one source but an abundentcy of source's...and not just from a Historical documentation, a Scientific assement which is fact, not assumption, {Fact} Not --->Assumption!

[caldrail]

Interesting though the statistics you have provided may be they are out of context since they do not answer what I see as the underlying question of is there any archaeological evidence for the size and maturity of beasts involved in such combats.

Also the species are not those involved in the Roman arena and hail from a single eniroment in which they co-existed and knew each others habits. Thus the mountain lion attacks bears succesfully because it knows how to suprise one and probably has no intention nwhatsoever of tackling one face on. African lions, such as those imported by the gold miners in the 19th century, did not have experience of bears at all, and as vaunted as the american grizzly is, caledonian bears in particular had quite a reputation. One account talks of a victim chained to a post to be attacked by one such animal and the writer tells us that whilst still alive, the condemned man's body was nowhere near as a man's should be. It doesn't take much imagination.

 

I'm also wary of accepting a statistical argument based on modern sources (never mind the anomalous origin of the data).

 

In terms of size and maturity, the Romans would have quickly realised that a bear was young and/or smaller. Since the games editor was attempting to please the crowd, it follows he would want the most impressive animals. Exotic beats of all sizes were usually paraded for the amazement of curious Romans. IT was the dangerous animals, other than those used for hunts, that were named Denatati and chosen because their potential violence was harnessed for corwd pleasing battles between beasts. Elephants were also used because their size, and reputation as an animal or war, made them impressive too. Rhhinoceri were pretty much unstioppable when finally persuaded to attack. Bulls were used in this way too, bearing in mind that the Romans had access to the now extinct aurochs breed, much more violent than than our dodgy modern agricultural descendants.

 

It wasn't just animals being goaded with spears until they did something. We have evidence of animals tied together such as bear and bull so that the two would get angry and frustrated, thus attacking sooner or later, adding an elent of speculation and expectation in the crowds mind

[Crispina]

I don't know how anyone could see and watch such a thing. That goes for bear baiting and modern dog fights as well. Nuts.