The same beast, why is the king of beasts a tiger instead of a lion?

This is not only related to the fighting capacity of the two beasts, but also to their living habits. First of all, although the lion looks majestic and seems to be more domineering than the tiger, the lion is arrogant entirely with the help of his mane. In fact, most lions are not as big as tigers. Even African lions, tigers are bigger than lions in terms of aggression and size, including living habits. Tigers are solitary animals and feel lonely.

Speaking of the king of beasts, many people may think of tigers at first, and some people may think of lions. These two animals are the fiercest carnivores, one is the overlord of Asia and the other is the overlord of the African savannah. However, more and more people seem to agree that the tiger is the king of beasts, and the lion, that is, some children think it is more powerful. In fact, this is reasonable. The tiger theory is indeed more powerful than the lion.

Generally speaking, African lions are around 250kg in size, and generally around 200kg. It may beat some little tigers. For example, Sumatra tiger is relatively small, but any lion is not as good as Bengal tiger or Northeast tiger, especially the familiar Northeast tiger. Large individuals can reach 300kg, and their predation skills are better than those of lions, so the naked combat effectiveness of lions has to be ranked behind tigers.

Let's talk about living habits. Although the fighting capacity of lions is not much different from that of tigers, lions are social animals, and tigers acting alone are obviously much more domineering than groups. There is an arrogant king image. After all, it is no joke to have two tigers in one mountain, but lions can't be immune to it, because in Africa, if stray lions are easily targeted by other animals, while tigers in Asia, no animals can compete with them, are basically dominant.