And this mismatch was compounded with any animal  the artist had clearly never seen before. European  

texts from this period are full of hilarious  attempts to depict of far-off species,  

So lets take a look at some of the most  inaccurate — bearing in mind it would be  

difficult to know what, say, a elephant would  look like if you'd never seen one before. 

And speaking of Elephants, they're a good  place to start when it comes to inaccurate  

depictions. Medieval artists seemed to  struggle with the concept of the trunk,  

often rendering it in bizzare ways. Many  illustrations also depict elephants supporting  

entire stone castles on their backs, spurring from  myths elephants were mighty enough to carry around  

entire buildings. This is, of course, incorrect. Another large African animal medieval artists  

struggled to portray is the hippopotamus, possibly  to an even greater extent than the elephant. Most  

illustrations of hippos from the era are way off,  with an assortment of aquatic traits like tails  

and dorsal fins actual hippos don't possess. Other  depictions almost make hippos like strange horses,  

perhaps due to misunderstandings surrounding the  animals name, which means 'river horse' in Latin. 

Up next we have the giraffe, an animal medieval  artists portrayed with less frequently than the  

hippo or elephant. Compared to the hippo at.  The very least, some pieces of art actually get  

the giraffe's general appearance… mostly right,  emphasizing the long neck. Well, most of the time. 

Moving on to African predators, we have the hyena,  an animal with rather inconsistent interpretations  

across different paintings. In some illustrations  the hyena features horns and almost resembles a  

carnivorous cow, while others are more dog like.  One curious trend is in many images, hyenas appear  

to be consuming the dead. This is because of a  common myth that the animals dug up cemeteries to  

eat human remains, a concept which is inaccurate. Moving to a different part of the world,  

another large predator which gets the short  end of the stick in medieval art is the tiger.  

Far from the massive predatory felines of the  real world, medieval tigers were small, dog-like  

creatures lacking the animal's trademark stripes.  Strangely enough, in many illustrations the tiger  

is drawn looking in a mirror. This stems from a  legend that a hunter could steal a tiger's cubs if  

they distracted the mother with her reflection, as  the mother would mistake it for her cub. A pretty  

grim legend, and one which would more than. Likely  result in imminent death if tried on a real tiger. 

Moving on to the world of birds, the ostrich  is a species medieval artists seemed to find  

particularly challenging. Most images of ostriches  lack many of the animals defining features,  

including their long neck and flightless nature.  Indeed, many depictions of the ostrich just look  

like standard birds. One unusual trend is the  ostrich of mideval art is often shown abandoning  

it egg in roast in the sun. Although real  ostriches do leave their eggs in exposed ground  

nests, this isn't because they're neglectful  parents — their eggs do just fine in the open.  

Another odd trend is illustrating the bird eating  an iron horseshoe. This comes from another myth  

that the ostrich could digest anything — even  metal. Once again, this is distinctly false. 

Another unique bird missing many of it's  most notable features. Is. the Pelican,  

which in medieval art is a shot beaked  organism missing it's trademark throat-pouch.  

A highly unusual theme is most depictions show  pelican families eating each other. The bizarre  

cannibalism comes from a legend pelican babies  try to eat their parents when fully grown,  

prompting the parents to eat them in return.  This is an obviously inaccurate notion,  

as any real species would die in a few  generations using such a behavioral model. 

Diving into the ocean, the next animal worth  touching on in the whale, an aquatic leviathan  

which rarely looks anything like the real  species in medieval art. In most depictions,  

the animal looks less like what we know  of as a whale and more like a giant fish,  

to the point where some versions are even  covered in fish-like scales. Some whales in  

medieval illustrations go a step further away  from the real animal and seem to have legs. 

While we're dealing with the ocean,  the dolphin is another interesting,  

albeit incorrectly portrayed marine mammal  when it comes to medieval art. Like the whale,  

the dolphin usually just resembles like  a giant, slightly goofy looking fish. 

One aquatic organism which deviates even  further from it's real-life counterpart,  

however, is the sea turtle, which for some reason  is often portrayed as bipedal with a massive tail.  

Sea turtles in medieval paintings also  usually feature curiously shaped shells  

and segmented toes. One depiction of a sea  turtle seems to look more like a hedgehog,  

with the artist likely hearing the animal was  armored and assuming the species were equivalent. 

Going further inland, a semi-aquatic predator  medieval artist took serious liberties with  

is a crocodile, with many images of the animal  being borderline unrecognizable. To be fair,  

some illustrations at least look more or less  like a reptile, while others really deviate  

from crocodilian features, displaying hair,  paws, bushy tails, and short, dog-like snouts.  

Then again, some of the drawings of crocodiles  don't include fur don't look all that better. 

Nearing the end of our list and truly veering  into bizarre territory, we have the scorpion,  

another animal given fur and mammalian  features without any clear explanation.  

There's something about giving a scorpion  a non-arachnid face which makes it look so  

fundamentally absurd. At least some  depictions give it more legs than a  

standard quadruped. Well, some depictions. At the very end of our journey, an animal  

you'd never be able to identify just by looking  at mideval portrayals, the chameleon. Although in  

real life the animal is a lizard, mideval artists  sometimes portrayed it as a horse-like organism,  

and sometimes more like a cat. In either case,  one thing is for sure — it looks nothing like  

the animals it's based on. The error might come  from phonetic similarities between chameleon and  

'leon' or lion, but truthfully the  reason why chameleons are so inaccurate  

in art from the period is anyone's guess.. And that's where our list comes to an end.  

I hope you enjoyed this video — if you did,  I have another one like it on the strangest  

fictional medieval monsters. Please consider  subscribing and leaving this video like if you  

appreciated the content. Thank you so much for  watching, and I'll see you in the next video.