Historically Lions Nearly Always Win Fights with Tigers

u have written that there is no mention of tigers in holy scriptures..... alright u r considering WESTERN WORLD scriptures.......
not to blame u . but do u know that west has coe up with a culture that knew only lions.. not tigers cuz actually they hadnt evn seen tigers at all. romans conquered africa and fossils and other texts tel that lions were almost common in europe by 5th century bc- 2nd century bc. they were then hutned off...... do u find any extracts telling romans invaded asia? perhaps not.....
but u must come to russian east; china; india; south-east asia etc...
u'll find glories of just tigers and in india where both the animals were present, both have been considered equal... u can reer to asian texts... all odes are present there praising the tiger's strength and its courage.....

people just say what there ancestors pass on to them and when a new theory comes they are not able to accept it even if it's true......

Sorry but I agree with Phil.

I've now seen (but not always read) more of these posts about lions fighting tigers than I care to remember.

This is just one too many for me.

I don't wish to be rude but I don't actually care who would win in a fight.

I agree with Phil... But really I don't know how often a tiger would actually come across a lion. Tigers live in dense forests, they have individual territories and typically avoid contact with other large cats. Lions, on the other hand, generally live in large open plains, they too have territories but they live in prides.

The majority of tiger and lion fights would probably be organised by humans...

These lion vs tiger posts are getting more and more weird...

I'm not sure whether it can be stated that 'historically' lions have outfought tigers, since they have been restricted to different continents since Man has been around. Might have happened occasionally in captivity, but that would have been very uncommon.

And I don't want to offend anyone's beliefs, but to base a practical argument on mostly allegorical scriptures that are at least 1,500 years old doesn't strike as me as very sound. I'm not disputing or agreeing with the final opinion, just the argument, which is specious. Or just a troll.