"
The scene has been portrayed in paintings, drawings, and illustrations hundreds of times, but it remains thrilling. Tyrannosaurus
, the greatest dinosaur toreador, confronts Triceratops
, the greatest set of dinosaur horns. No matchup between predator and prey has ever been more dramatic. It's somehow fitting that those two massive antagonists lived out their co-evolutionary belligerence through the very last days of the very last epoch in the Age of Dinosaurs."
~Robert T. Bakker (
The Dinosaur Heresies; 1986)
Assuming both individuals are healthy adults that weigh the same, this would be one helluva fight. One is primarily armed with a big f*ckoff mouth with a battery of serrated war hammer spikes for teeth. The other is armed with a humongous, heavy skull outfitted with two large yet relatively stout horns, as well as a bony shield that protects the neck. Secondary weapons include sharp-tipped toe claws and a sharp hooked beak, respectively, but these would be harder to implement than the primary weapons. Both were very heavily built animals.
The
Triceratops has a lower center of gravity with those relatively stout legs. Those legs are, as I've said, very muscular; for example, according to Greg Paul, the ilium of ceratopsids is even longer proportionately than in the tyrannosaurids, which is definitely saying something (although, in terms of the
M. caudofemoralis that retracts the femur, the predator definitely has its prey beat). Combine leg musculature that rivals the tyrannosaurid's own (at least in some regards) with the relatively short/compact body and the ceratopsian's quadrupedal stance (thus requiring less torque to turn as quickly), and the
Triceratops should be more maneuverable than the
Tyrannosaurus.
However, the
Tyrannosaurus can greatly increase its agility by lifting its tail up and cocking its head/neck back, and itself had adaptations for agility (the arctometatarsalian foot, the expanded leg musculature, abbreviated torso, and elongated semicircular ear canals). Because of this, I am, in fact, strongly opposed to the idea that any old quadruped is more agile than a similar sized theropod (for example, I don't think an elephant would be). But a much more efficient way to cope with the
Triceratops' anterior defenses would be to position itself slightly to the side of the
Triceratops, such that the rex's body is parallel to the Trike's, and in a position where it can't be gored by the Trike unless the latter turns its whole body to face it. That way, the
T. rex could reach out and grab the Trike's flanks right from where it's standing (or not far from it) without having to fully outmaneuver the ceratopsid, and basically takes full advantage of certain aspects of the theropod body plan. Because the amount of reach granted by the combined length of the rex's skull, neck, and torso (literally half its body length) would be much more than that granted by a Trike's horns, I believe it's possible for the rex to perform this maneuver without having a vital body part gored. Although
Triceratops' head was very flexible at the base (the occipital condyle was a spherical structure that would have been part of a flexible ball-and-socket joint), I don't think it could literally turn its head/neck 90 degrees to stab the side of a
Tyrannosaurus that was right next to it. Additionally, the elongated semicircular ear canals I mentioned earlier about
T. rex are also an adaptation for stabilizing its gaze on its prey; i.e. coordinating eye movements and head rotation (
Witmer & Ridgely, 2009).
Triceratops, on the other hand, had relatively smaller semicircular ear canals than more basal relatives (including quadrupedal ones like
Protoceratops), suggesting that its sensory modalities were not as optimized for gaze stabilization (
Sakagami & Kawabe, 2020). So it's possible that the tyrannosaur could make quicker reactions/have better reflexes than the ceratopsian when keeping its eye on and lunging at its opponent face-to-face.
Alternatively, there are fossils that show that a tyrannosaurid could bite the face (or even the horns!) of a ceratopsid head-on, possibly to prevent itself from being gored. Although I do not believe a
Tyrannosaurus would actively target a
Triceratops' horns, a broken horn would result in one less weapon, and making the maneuver I described above even safer. Biting the frill might also give the
T. rex a vantage point from which it could then quickly reach out and grab the neck, shoulder, forelimb, flanks, etc. However, the one
Triceratops specimen known to have had its horn bitten off by a
Tyrannosaurus survived the encounter. Whether it killed (or at least fought off) its assailant or fled from the confrontation is unknown.
I regard the
T. rex's jaws as more damaging than megaherbivore horns or tusks, as I believe that getting bones shattered and a huge chunk of flesh ripped out (and leaving nothing behind but a massive, gaping wound that is losing a lot of blood) would be worse than the trauma from getting gored, unless the latter were a lucky one-shot to a vital region (which a set of jaws is capable of producing too). It should be remembered that horns and tusks are not insta-kill weapons any more than jaws necessarily are (there are many incidents with modern horned or tusked animals proving this). However, that's obviously not to say the
Triceratops' horns aren't damaging weapons themselves, and I think there are some aspects of the horns worth mentioning here. Firstly, the brow horn cores of ceratopsian dinosaurs are rather stout for their length, more so than elephant tusks and antelope horns. The keratin sheath, of course, would make the horn longer, sharper, and stronger in life. So it seems these horns could be used rather vigorously in a fight. Not only that, but the nearly spherical occipital condyle of
Triceratops that I mentioned earlier would grant the skull great mobility at its base. Imagine a
Triceratops, after it has stabbed an unlucky
Tyrannosaurus (or other animal), vigorously twisting its head as its horns are still embedded in its opponent, driving them deeper and deeper (akin to twisting a knife). This is not something I can see modern megaherbivores with horns or tusks doing, given the obvious differences in occipital condyle structure/morphology.
One thing I hope I made clear is that this is way more than just a battle of horns and teeth. This is a battle of leg muscles, reach, body flexibility, and reflexes. Overall, when stipulating the conditions I mentioned above, I believe this could really go either way. Perhaps one would win more often than not, but honestly, I'm not even going to bother deciding who. Anyone who says they favor one or the other here is not without reason. It could come down to the individual and the experience they have. I think Bill Oddie said it best:
"
...in a full-on, all things being equal fair fight...I really wouldn't like to predict. In fact, at the end of the day, it might be just a matter of who makes the first mistake."
(
The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs; 2005)
This matchup has been popular for nearly a century, from Charles R. Knight's mural to the present day. And for good reason.
T. rex was, well, freakin'
T. rex, but
Triceratops was the perfect matchup for it. There admittedly were megaherbivores that could handle a
T. rex with significantly greater ease, particularly many giant sauropods, really big hadrosaurids, and certain extinct giant proboscideans. But all of these animals had the advantage of being much bigger than either
Tyrannosaurus or
Triceratops anyway. Take away any size advantage, and there are few other megaherbivores I'd rather have, or at least desire as much, protecting me from a hungry and/or pissed off
Tyrannosaurus than a ceratopsid like
Triceratops. A bull African bush elephant – the only living land animal as big as either of these two – doesn't hold a candle to either of these two bad boys.
