Poll: Who wins?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Siberian Tiger
56.25%
18 56.25%
Eurasian Brown Bear
43.75%
14 43.75%
Total 32 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Siberian Tiger v Eurasian Brown Bear
Bears were common in Europe and some were captured from N. Africa. But Michel Pastoureau clearly states in his book that in his research he found no accounts of tigers in the Roman games. But there was a dog-like or hyena-like animal they called tiger. Pictures and sculptures show the dog-like appearance and they were always colored brown.
Now, I suppose that this historian could be wrong. Perhaps Warsaw you might consider reading this: THE BEAR - History of a Fallen King. It might very well be the only book about a particular animal ever written by a historian. I found it very interesting from cover-to-cover. If you do, I would love to hear your take on it.
Perhaps there were actual tigers in the ancient Roman games. I was simply taking the word of a European historian.



in the Roman games or in the thirteenth-century menageries?

PM

page #150 - Toward the middle of the thirteenth century, these two polar bears were 'curiosa exotica' of the kind that every menagerie of any importance had to possess in order to effectively function as an emblem of power. ( keeping up with the Jones' ) Owning a brown bear had become totally banal and held very little interest. Kings and princes gave up that animal, abandoning it to the menageries of towns and petty lords, or even to jongleurs, tumblers, and animal showmen who traveled from one village fair to the next. Lions, not bears, were now what every princely menagerie had to contain. It would be useful to know in detail the composition of thirteenth-century menageries, but, in the absence of plentiful documentation, we have only an approximate idea. Thanks to narrative texts and a few accounting archives, we know that they contained many lions that had to be fed, cared for, guarded, and replaced. Lions, but also panthers, leopards, and even some "tigers," about which we can guess that they were not the animals we know by that name. When medieval images intend to depict tigers, they never show felines resembling our Asian tigers, but quadrupeds with dark, sometimes spotted fur, resembling large wolves with enormous teeth and claws. In the closing years of the fourteenth century, King Charles VI of France adopted the "tiger" as an emblem that he used, among others, as a personal "device." Narative texts and accounting documents frequently mention this "tiger," but images never represent it as a large, striped wild animal, but rather as a kind of fox or wolf ( the latter was, incidentally the device of the king's brother, Louis d'Orleans

There is a huge difference between "Roman Gladiator Bestiary.AND "composition of thirteenth-century menageries" things that happens around 800 years ago.


"What happened in Rome? Why did the gladiatorial games stop? What happened to the Roman Colosseum? What caused the ruin of the colosseum? Why was it allowed to fall into disrepair? What was the reason for not rebuilding the Roman Colosseum?

Decline of the Colosseum - Christianity and the end of the Gladiators
The Decline of the Colosseum started when the Gladiatorial games were stopped. The last known gladiatorial fight took place during the reign of the Emperor Honorius(reigned 393 - 423AD). The catalyst for this change was was an Egyptian monk named Telemachus who had newly come to Rome and visited the Colosseum in 404AD. He objected to the savage bloodshed and slaughter in the arena and the midst of the bloodshed shouted for it to cease in the name of Christ. He was stoned by the outraged 'mob' and killed. Three days later the Emperor issued a decree that the gladiatorial games were to stop. Less violent events such as hunting events continued to be shown until 523AD. The advent of Christianity led to a massive change of attitudes in the Roman Empire. The Roman culture changed from being antagonistic to becoming pacifistic. With the new Christian religion the morals, principles and values of the Romans changed."
[-] The following 1 user Likes Warsaw's post:
  • brobear
Reply
THE BEAR - History of a Fallen King tells of how the bear was the original king of beast from the Pleistocene up until the Church hand-picked the lion as a replacement for the bear because of the numerous bear cults spread throughout all of Europe. There was actually a war declared against the bear in which there was a great bear slaughter. Some countries began replacing the bear with the lion in roughly 1000 AD. The Germanic territories were the last to accept the lion in 1200 AD. Before the Church replaced the bear with the lion, the most common animals on such things as shields and banners were the bear and the boar. 
 
I will edit and add: before the great bear slaughter ( similar to the history of the American grizzly much later ) European bears were larger and fiercer than those remaining today. Also, perhaps there were tigers in Rome after the lion had been crowned as the new King of Beasts in 1000 AD?
Reply
Brown bears are really the most adaptable species of bears. Brobear, you are right, it is wrong to take away the weight advantage of a brown bear, however, this bear has many subspecies with weight ranges that overlaps with the Siberian tiger which is interesting.
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvrzjqcLyE2x1TQvejwfq...4IDvD2d3Tt]
OldMan
Reply
(5 hours ago)Old Tibetan Blue Bear Wrote: Brown bears are really the most adaptable species of bears. Brobear, you are right, it is wrong to take away the weight advantage of a brown bear, however, this bear has many subspecies with weight ranges that overlaps with the Siberian tiger which is interesting.

Where the Amur tiger lives, at least now in the 21st century, there is only the Amur, also called Ussuri brown bear - the black grizzly. 
If the Himalayan tiger's range ever overlaps with the Himalayan brown bear ( red bear ) then we might begin see tigers preying on full-grown male brown bears.
[-] The following 1 user Likes brobear's post:
  • Old Tibetan Blue Bear
Reply
Quote:By far, most staged fights were won by bear over the big cats.
Likewise do Tiger and Bear fans claim. I don't know what is correct and I don't care much since the credibility of such old accounts is generally small. This fight I speak of, is recent however. Do note, that I believe a Brown Bear stands a much better chance against a Pantherine at parity than a Black Bear does.

Quote:There are numerous accounts of grizzlies defeating tigers in the arena and a multitude of grizzlies defeating lions in the arena.
And virce verca. To be honest, I have always leaned towards the Bear accounts you speak of, but due to learning how small Eurasian Grizzlies were, I am now uncertain. But maybe the Lions and Tigers were smaller up north.

Quote:There remains no cases of a tiger ever defeating a mature male grizzly and only two cases of lions defeating a mature male grizzly.
I am a Lion fanboi, I see little reason to why the smaller Lion would fare better against a Bear. Again, you could probably find a lot of accounts of Tigers winning as well, but no one ever wants to do that since it goes against their cherry picking.
An account from 1800 or 1900 described a Tiger killing a Polar Bear in a Circus. Of course, Polar Bears are difficult to care for in a Zoo, let alone in a Circus, and I heard they tends to be smaller than in the wild and less healthy, but none the less, it would still have been average Brown Bear sized at least.

Quote:The number of lions defeated by brown bears number at least in the hundreds, probably thousands.
"Probably thousands". Wishful thinking and that would indeed be lovely, but I don't think you understand how many "thousands" would be in a few hundred years of arena fights in a few countries. Just because you really wants this to be true, even tho it is unrealistic, you should not view it as a possibility.

Quote:The mere fact that a tiger will no close with a sloth bear face-to-face tells us that tigers fear a face-to-face confrontation with bears.
Which is irrelevant in a hypothetical fight where the Tiger will have no fear. Sure, let's say Tigers do not like face to face fights, I might even agree to an extent, but we have still seen them frontally confront animals in the wild and in Zoos. And here where it will fight regardless, it means little if anything at all.

Quote:It doesn't matter that no tiger has ever been killed by a sloth bear. The tiger is the predator. Sloth bears do not hunt tigers. But, the bear, once aware of the tiger's presence, can defend himself and fight off the tiger.
Toy dogs and Domestic Cats have "fought off" Black and Brown Bears as well. That is a wild confrontation with no fatal outcome, it does not show who would actually win if both went all out, which hint hint, the tiny dogs and cats gets horribly eaten.
A Tiger backing down from a Sloth Bear, as far as we have seen, just shows us that it is careful, it does not show anywhere near that the Bear is capable of battling a serious larger Tiger without becoming a ragdoll. Even that account of the Sow Sloth Bear and the young male Tiger, the Bear was a ragdoll for most of the fight until the Tiger thought "nah". I use that account as an argument for Brown Bears as well, but there is no doubt that a prolonged choke hold would have been all that was needed, had the Tiger not lost its nerve.
The Bear also loses, if it does not kill the Tiger, since it is stil the one taking the worse beatings. It only win at durability points.
Reply
(Yesterday, 05:47 PM)brobear Wrote:
(Yesterday, 12:28 PM)Ryo Wrote: There was a staged Zoo fight between a Lioness and a Black Bear, where the size difference was even less than the examples shown here, and the Bear got thrown around the ground by mere paw swipes. If the smaller Bear does not kill the Tiger, then it has lost just as much. Unless you wanna tell me that toy dogs and domestic cats "beats" and "win" fights with Bears and Alligators because they back of.

By far, most staged fights were won by bear over the big cats. There are numerous accounts of grizzlies defeating tigers in the arena and a multitude of grizzlies defeating lions in the arena. 

Firstly, stage fights and other accounts from the early 1900's and older are unreliable and full of myths. If you disagree, I can show you a dozen accounts of cougars defeating adult grizzly and black bears in face to face fights. You know what, I'll do it anyway. Read this:

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/mountain...ar.437970/

Secondly, bears won most stage fights over big cats by far?? Really?? What you basing this on, a generic statement or 2 that doesn't actually provide any detailed accounts?? Read this:

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthr...?t=3889729
Reply
If we are gonna be really mean, we could probably find accounts of pairs or trios domestic Dogs, heck, perhaps even single dogs who have "killed" adult Bears and what not. Likewise could you probably with Leopards.

I mean, there is 1 or 2 supposed accounts of Wolverines killing Polar Bears, one in a Zoo and one wild. if we believe in everything we cherry pick, this could easily be used as well.
Reply
(Yesterday, 05:47 PM)brobear Wrote: The mere fact that a tiger will no close with a sloth bear face-to-face tells us that tigers fear a face-to-face confrontation with bears. A tiger will ambush a sloth bear attacking from cover or from the rear, but will not go nose-to-nose with him. It doesn't matter that no tiger has ever been killed by a sloth bear. The tiger is the predator. Sloth bears do not hunt tigers. But, the bear, once aware of the tiger's presence, can defend himself and fight off the tiger.
Lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, etc... Also avoid face to face confrontations with honey badgers, does that mean anything?
                               [Image: MG_6373-960x500_c.jpg]
Reply
Yes, it means that Honey Badgers are more often than not going to win death confrontations with much larger carnivores.

That would be, if we assumed fleeing indicated who would lose if they both were serious.
Also, we have an unreliable case of a Honey Badger killing a male Lion by biting its balls off. That can be cherry picked with the Wolverine vs Polar Bear accounts into a Mustelid master race.
Reply
I don't care much about accounts from the early 1900's and earlier anyway.

But Brobear saying something like "The number of lions defeated by brown bears number at least in the hundreds, probably thousands"...

when there are actually very few accounts of bears defeating or killing lions (excluding generic statements not referring to specific encounters) and far more accounts, detailed accounts, of lions defeating and killing bears being available...

I don't know how to respond to that.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Ryo
Reply
I will edit and add: before the great bear slaughter ( similar to the history of the American grizzly much later ) European bears were larger and fiercer than those remaining today. Also, perhaps there were tigers in Rome after the lion had been crowned as the new King of Beasts in 1000 AD?
Well

Late Holocene&Pleistocene European bears were larger and fiercer than those remaining today,but AD 100 _400?


,
Anyway,Do you have any evidence that prove your claim


BTW
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...20%251%24s

The skull looks pretty everage,( not impressive at all)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: theGrackle, 3 Guest(s)