IT WAS *MANBEARPIG!* 😁😁

First off, I really really enjoy your content, keep it up. Second, I would be so over the moon if you made a video on the champawat tigress. she holds the claim of the deadliest maneater of all time, with an estimated 436 kills. I think that video would turn out really good. if you don't want to make a video about that animal in particular than plz consider making a video on some other iconic maneater/maneaters.

@@samuhakoto Yeah I would also love a video on Champawat Tigress

This would make a good movie

Most eerie & disturbing to me: approximately 30 years later...humans would be ruthlessly beheading the French - and Today la France still awaits her promised Great Monarch to restore all that was lost...

"In Walmart???" "Shut up, you transphobe!"

@@unterdessen8822 IT IS MA'AM, IT'S MA'AM !

@@gigachad6885 Excuse me, I'm on my way to Ma'amhattan. I have no time this now.

Thats living in a 3rd world country

@@theballadofkobirae7431 France was one of the most advanced countries at the time, rivaled perhaps only by Great Britain. Even now, France is a significant European country, by no means a third world country. Sad that most Americans think “iF iTs NoT AmErIcA, iTs ThIrD wOrLd”.

@@Pastamist sorry sir ( i actually mean this trully) i made my statement without considering the way it might sound. My statement is ment to reflect what its like to live in a third world country in the 21st century. I say this from experience living for 23 years in a small 3rd world country called zimbabwe. I was fortunate to live in the cities most of the time but 3 months a year i had to spend in the village paying my dues and providing labour. In the villages where 70% of our population live there are elephants eating crop, lions stalking cattle , baboons stealing corn, leopards snatching kids etc. It reflects a scenario not to diffrent from the (maybe more prevelent and intense) one presented in the video, where the towns people are in constant danger from predation. I apologise if you saw this comment on as a diminutive comment on the status of france as a world power and developed nation during that time period. is there anything you might want me to clear out?

@@theballadofkobirae7431 oh my bad. No no, you don’t need to clarify anything else. You make perfect sense.

Oh and you don’t have electricity or flashlights

how do you know?

@@bjork5178 what are you asking

Yes, shockingly terrifying...almost a prelude to the greater terror of the Freemasonic revolution that would devastate Catholic France less than 40 years later...

Yeah hyenas are freaky Even lions won’t mess with them

Wait, how would a Hyena get to France in the first place? Some dumbass noble that thought it made a good pet?

There are claims that it was hayena

@@fiberpoet6250 bro male lion's are known for killing hyenas for sport. You find many video just type lion vs hyena in searchbar

It was a hyena or mad man.

They literally cut it open and found the human bones and clothes of it's victims inside + it was confirmned by the eyewitnesses of the attacks that the killed animal was in fact the beast. a canid. 100% No lion. There is evidence from the autopsy, skull and teeth as well. Probably a dog Wolf Hybrid

@@BlackCroLongyeah no, a wolf-dog is big but not as big as how they described it, im pretty sure it was a previously "extinct" creature or something.

@@atanki5682 it was a hybrid "LARGE" dogue and also very very massive large "wolf" it was a female wolf who bred with a very very large DOGUE

@@BlackCroLong sources? (I'm actually not disputing your take at all, I just want to read the autopsy report!)

The quote Duhammel gave suggests the French knew what a lion looked like, not to mention menageries existed at the time as well. I would mention the autopsy, but someone had already mentioned. As for the hyena theory, they were also supposedly in menageries. The number of teeth of the Beast shot by Chastel, according to reports, matched more to the number of a wolf’s than a hyena’s, yet the jaws of the Beast were broader than a wolf’s, according to an image comparing the skulls of the two. Plus there were reports that the Beast could stand on its hind legs- a very unusual behavior for a lupine-type creature. However, there were also reports claiming it had hooves or that it was impervious to bullets, so this might be best taken with a grain of salt, as hysteria likely manipulated many reports of the Beast.

And I agree

😂😂😂😂😂

Damnit Jasmine

One of my all time favorite movies!

Grab a leash next time. Prick.

Yes, Jean Chastel said, it came to him and waited to be shot. He was later accused of being its handler. People thought, he had brought it to France from abroad (he had actually been in North Africa and the Middle East). His report about killing it with a silver bullet made of a religious amulet is the only supernatural element of the whole story. By all means, people SHOULD have called it a werewolf back then. They did believe in supernatural creatures and lacked the education to see the difference between monsters and real animals. But nobody claimed, that it was anything else but a wolf. I was a little surprised to read this, tbh.

@@unterdessen8822 wow! Considering I probably watched that documentary when i was like 10 (11 years ago) I'm surprised I still remembered correctly! 😅

@@unterdessen8822 nahhhh thats them trying to cover it up homie no reason yo spread terror when they killed whatever it was. If it was a wolf they would've propped it up and shown the villages that this was the beast. Instead what happened? It was swept under the rug.

@@iseley I see, that's interesting!

@Bogan WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

I did not expect this comment.

Stop that. It's very silly.

Or so the Germans would have us believe.

quite plausible, since they both share similar atrocities.

Spanish Inquisition it wasn't that cruel or bad like is depicted in relates and movies. Did you knew prisoners in that time prefer to be in inquisition prisons instead of common prisons?, they even did something blasphemous to be transfered to inquition prison cause these rison treat them better, have better food, and have at least a bed in contrast to the common dungeons of the governments in that time.

Agree, but it’s not really hard these days given how bad History channel has become

the history channell is a joke they might as well call themselves the ufo channel now

They most certainly are putting out better content than the History Channel.

Low bar you set there

@@HoneybeeHollowGardens It's the nature of *_Democrats_* fixed it for you.

Hadn't heard that theory before, but the debacle in Gevaudan definitely did foment local peasant dissatisfaction with Versailles. It was a little chilling researching royal officials who helped hire out hunters to kill the beast, and then learning their ultimate fate was the guillotine.

Hmm, this theory seems self-destructive and illogical if the conspirators were in fact from the Aristocracy themselves. If the conspiracy was intended to overthrow the Monarchy, would not the goal be to insert another bloodline into the royal line? Merovingians perhaps?

Came to the comments to mention that movie and story!

Such an awesome movie. I remember seeing it the Kentucky Theater in Lexington, KY back in 2001. Also held some inspiration with the Playstation game Bloodborne (kind of like combining Brotherhood of the Wolf with some Lovecraft novels.

Freaking love that movie. Still have on DVD.

Thanks for the recommendation 👌🏿

I mean I literally called it a historical fiction movie. Not entirely sure how you would expect it to be historically accurate in any way lol

00 ki

Never heard of anyone else watching that gem of a movie

I watched that movie many times mostly because of Monica Bellucci.😍

Sounds like a hyaena.

But wolf and dogs are technically the same species, whereas what you describe happens between animals of different species right?

@@Elias_98 Hybrid vigor? (aka heterosis) It is something that is definitely observed in dog-wolf hybrids. Species and sub-species are definitely a continuum. While wolves and dogs are in many respects the same species they are still very, very distantly related, and many breeds of dogs, when mixed with wolves have fertility issues. Heterosis is most commonly seen within species. Different species have considerably difficulty breeding altogether, unless they are pretty closely related.

@@gossumx Except for size. Wolf dog hybrid will be considerably larger than a hyena and far more likely to be roaming that area.

@@jamesfetherston1190 could it be a Pit Dog and Wolf Hybrid?

Sure thing, Captain Kant.

I was thinking it could have been a Hyena also. A lot of the attacks were on children or young adults. Hyena's are well known opportunistic predators, and will often choose smaller/weaker prey over larger, stronger adults. If it were anything like a wolf or large cat, they would have no issue with choosing larger prey at random, and people would have been able to define it's identification easier. Hyena's are hulking muscular beasts, but choose their fights wisely and mostly roam in packs for confidence in numbers, and also would be colloquially lesser known to populous than wolves and large cats of the era with it being such an exotic animal so far north. If it was an escaped captive specimen, it would be prone to attacking humans in the hunger/survival sense being without a pack. It would lead it to being more confident with no other apex threats in it's locale, with the exception of armed Humans. My guess is a Hyena also.

I say it was a penguin

@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 Or an anteater.

@@Neur0nauT Hyena's would have left less behind, buried the remains and came back to eat the rotten corpse. They also tend to bite more and claw less, attacking from behind.

Nah should have sent the boogey man himself JOHN WICK only heaeshots

Toss a coin to the Witcher...

The internet has found a better job for him. Voldemort: Who are you?! The Witcher: That boy with the glasses gave me some coins. Voldemort: 😱

@@itsfade4212 but it's a dog

Winchesters will work too

@Samuel Deighan Very true. However, the decapitations are far more plausible coming from a predator with a significantly larger bite radius than an average canid.

As far as I know lions don't asphyxiate they're prey, they rip the throats open, as to kill the animal as quickly as possible as to not take unnecessary damage from the animal, like how House cat will put claws around something and then kick with its back legs, it's to stop the shuffle as fast as possible. While bears will just hold you down and start eating your entrails

Disagree. Pretty sure a lion would die in France during the winter. They don't hibernate and aren't built for extreme cold. It was almost certainly just random wolf attacks with some run of the mill murder mixed in. Plus, as he said, the lion exhibits were common in France so it would have been most likely recognized by at least somebody.

People were not so ignorant as to not know what a lion is like. Its most likely a wolf-dog hybrid that was unusually large and had lost all fear of humans. Wolfs do prey on humans- particularly children and women since they are smaller.

@@nikninja2233 lions do asphyxiate. If you watch videos of lions taking down prey, one lioness will usually grab onto the throat and hold firmly to suffocate the animal until it collapses. If it’s lucky, she’ll hold on until it’s actually dead, not just incapacitated, so it doesn’t have to endure the agony of being eaten alive (which does happen). Most animals lions prey on are too big and strong to rip out the throat. Humans have fragile little throats, so it would be pretty easy on us.

One major issue with that though is that hyenas aren't solitary hunters, and they generally prefer to scavenge when they can. In the wild they hunt in large plans, using organized tactics. A lion seems much more likely, given that they hunt on their own as a matter of course.

@@maggiethedruid9010 the taxidermy could be a hyena and not necessarily what was originally killed. Hell, the hunter could have just taxidermied a hyena and said "case closed" without hunting anything.

@Bill Jobes typically a person can scare away a hyena just by yelling. I've been reading about the Hyenas eating the homeless in Africa. Hyenas usually eat the whole person and leave nothing behind. They'll even eat shoes and wallets. When they don't finish a kill, they tend to bury it nearby and dig it up a day later. A hyena would be a grave robber first before a man killer when possible. They usually don't claw their victims much but a nip is an amputation because of their bite force. They tend to crush skulls and eat the heads first. These bodies were mostly asphyxiated, clawed, and ripped apart. Sometimes it appeared the skin was partially ripped off. Big cats lick skin off prey animals. Dead bodies were also strewn about and abandoned after the internal organs were eaten, which is also typical of a big cat.

At the time he was cause humans were prey then

Wolves almost never attacked humans tough. But the wolves were still a problem cause they slaughtered sheeps

@@oldboy_warped3906 it stems from an irrational fear that was once rational Unless you raised livestock and one wolf attack was the difference between eating well the winter or barely makinf it

@@BOB-wx3fq of course the treat was vastly ovverrated, kind like sharks in modern era.

@@oldboy_warped3906 it's something like 100,000,000 sharks are killed for every 6 people

People are saying it was a hyena based on DNA testing

Well, the film makes up a lot of stuff: Gregoire de Fronsac and his Native American companion Mani are completely fictional, so most of the story (= the part which is based on their actions) has nothing to do with the historical events. There was no cabal of aristocrats colluding with the church to shame and ultimately overthrow the French government by having peasants eaten by a monster. The whole setup doesn't make any sense. In real life, it was very clear, that the King of France had no qualms whatsoever to fake a successful hunt and present a fake monster to the court to shut up those farmers. He didn't care that they were slaughtered - when he wanted it to be over, it was over, because he was able to silence the press and present a cadaver. I do like the film (mainly because of the great actors), but I'm aware that it makes some big mistakes. For example, the beast never entered buildings. This is crucial, when you believe, that it had a handler: Imagine you train a wild animal to kill humans. This is not a dog; it probably won't obey every time you tell it to eff off, and could attack you at some point. As the handler, you would have to follow it and stay close to it, so you would always be at a risk of getting mauled, if that things has a bad day and turns on you. You need to anticipate that. To me it sounds plausible, that the handler explicitly trained the animal never to enter buildings. Not only because it could be trapped in there and caught, which might expose him, but also because he needed a safe place to hide from it, in case it went nuts. If he knew, that it wouldn't come after him, not even when the door was open, he only had to enter a random building to avoid being killed by his own monster. You don't really want to sit in a tree for days, when shit hits the fan - you take precautions and make sure, that the beast leaves you alone in a comfortable place, that is common enough in your area. Therefore, there should never have been a scene in the film, in which it broke into a house. In conclusion, don't rely on the film for information. It's 90% bs and only uses the beast as an antagonist in a story, that largely ignores the real events and only keeps a certain outline. Its plot has as much to do with the real beast as Marvel's Thor comics have to do with the actual Norse god.

I find this theory really intriguing. I still think wolves is the "safe" explanation, but it's not hard to believe an escaped lion helped kickstart the legend of the Beast

@@HistoryDose Thank you very much. I live in an Lower Saxony were there are several packs of wolves. They are so fearfull - you never see them, but they kill a lot of sheep, calves etc. Without being infected by rabies or fed by humans esp. when they are young wolves are not dangerous to humans (at least much less than wild boar). Wild dogs and hybrides with wolves are dangerous and that could be also an explanation for the Beast of Gevaudan.

What is the escaped lion mated with a wolf?😅😂

@@msh4826 😂A wolion or liolf? Ligers exist.

@@fizoblong9506 maybe..

Oskar Söderberg wrong channel

it was remus lupins great grandfather

WHO would've thought hehe

Woman said she saw a ghost and and I saw a white owl how can they confuse a owl for something large with a head like a pig maybe a wild boar could be though.

It was a womble

"Severing heads and eating throats", red pelt, and the pig-like snout really do remind me of a erythristic hyena. If you look at hyena attacks, the head and throat as well as the extremities are what are usually destroyed, if the beastie does not eat the rest. See the Malawi terror beast for a serial hyena attack and note the similarities. EDIT: I have changed my stance to back the idea of a subadult male lion, based on the evidence at hand presented for that case.

What happened to them in French

🤔 maybe 🦁 lion

I myself think it was a hyena that had been trained to kill people and then let loose .

Just a bunch of wolves driven to attack humans due to starvation.

cool that you grew up there and that they still talk/think about this...

That's very cool that the legend lives on. Thanks again for the footage!

May i know how this region is called nowadays?

@@rollothewalker5535 It's called Lozère I made a drone video of the area, feel free to watch it if you're interested :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gp-PoqR3t9C-l3k.html

@@FueledByTime. Thanks!

That's strange, because the hide and skull, that were kept in Paris, vanished without trace before the year 1900. There were no remains left a hundred years ago. Their disappearance is a bit suspicious - allegedly the preserved hide was thrown out, because it had started to decay due to mold, because it had been kept in a wet basement room. What exactly did they examine? I'd really be interested in seeing that documentary.

@@unterdessen8822 can you cite your source in regards to the claims made about the hide disappearing? Having trouble finding it aside from weird occult/theoretical websites. Definitely was a wolf though, most likely more than one considering they killed a bunch of wolves during that time (canids are the only thing to have been hunted in that area of France to this day, couple that with the fact that the wolves in that area were known for ‘cyclical attacks’). They eventually took out a massive one (which was not the Beast that was sent to Versailles) and the attacks stopped but by then they had also wiped a solid portion of the pack(s) out and they don’t reproduce like coyotes lol

@@Phogramo Derek Brockis mentioned this, but as far as I know he has put up a paywall. The original French source seems to be Bernard Soulier: "Précisions historiques: On en sait un peu plus sur la fin de la dépouille de la bête de Chastel." In "Gazette de la bête", Nr. 11, December 2010, page 1-4. I'll give you a summary, that I've translated to English: "Chastel brought the badly conserved cadaver to Versailles in August [1767]." The beast had been shot on the 19th of June 1767. "But the king ordered him to bury the decomposing cadaver immediately. According to a report from the archive in Mende [one of the larger towns in the Gevaudan region], that was found and published in 1809, Chastel did not go himself. A domestic servant of the Marquis d'Apcher was sent and encountered the Comte de Buffon [the most accomplished researcher in the field of natural science at that time in France], when he tried to drop off the cadaver. On royal orders, Buffon examined it thoroughly. The body was hairless and infested with maggots due to decomposition. Buffon concluded, that "it was just the body of a very large wolf". Original quote: "Après un examen sérieux, jugea que ce n'était qu'un gros loup." After the examination, Gibert [the servant] was ordered to bury the cadaver by the river Seine. My source actually claims, that the skull and the hide were never kept in any sort of museum - they were just buried in Paris. Which means, that I was wrong, when I claimed they were kept somewhere in a wet basement. I read that somewhere, but can't reconstruct where exactly, so I looked into it today and found the Comte de Buffon's account. My bad. Anyway, there was nothing left of the beast after August 1767, that anyone could have examined. So the question remains: Where did these guys in the documentary find the DNA, that is supposedly that of a hyena? The witness testimonies collected between 1763-1767, that Abbé Pierre Pourcher published in his book "La Bête du Gévaudan" in 1889, contradict the assumption, that it could have been a hyena or wolf as well: Those people knew what both animals looked like (at that precise time in the 1760s, a circus with a hyena had just come through the region) and described features, that neither fit a hyena nor a wolf.

@@unterdessen8822 that’s weird, it’s widely accepted that Francois Antoine shot and killed the beast in September of 1765 and there’s local accounts of it being on display in Paris 🧐

@@Phogramo Antoine's beast was the official cadaver, that was preserved immediately and presented to the court. The king wanted no more news about gruesome killings in the Gevaudan, so he stopped them. It didn't matter which animal Antoine brought back, it just had to be a big, scary wolf. They coloured it a little and stuffed it with more straw than necessary, so it would look monstruous, and then they showed it off. But nothing had been resolved in the Gevaudan. People were still getting killed. Conservative estimates (as published at the time of the attacks) will tell you, that about 100 people died. More modern estimates, backed by research, will tell you, that we're possibly looking at 600 attacks, 500 of which may have been successful. Between 90-100 people were (partially) eaten. The larger number of victims draws into account, that in a wider area around the centre of the problem there was an unusual number of people, who simply went missing and were never seen again. They could have moved to Paris or a different European country or to some French colony... but they vanished without trace, for no reason, with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Young children, too, who probably didn't run off to Louisiana. Many of the relatives suspected murder or other foul play. Those are the possible additional victims, who may have died alone: Nobody to witness their death or disappearance, no bodies or remains found. But that's speculation. At the moment we have ~100 confirmed victims due to witnesses, in the years between 1763-1767. Officially, the killing spree lasted from 1764-1765, but witness testimonies make it clear, that the beast first showed up and killed in 1763 and the attacks only ended after Jean Chastel had shot his beast in the summer of 1767. Maybe check the wikipedia article... and if the English language version doesn't contain all the information, you can still run the French version through Google Translate 🤷‍♀️ If I want to find details about something, that didn't happen in my own country, I usually look up their wikipedia entries. It happened there, they have all the documents, understand the language... so they should know best.

I was wondering if it could have been a serial killer too. Women aren't necessarily that much smaller, and therefore more appealing than men, to a wild animal, but human serial killers certainly see them that way. : (

@@MoonBratStudio oh, animals can tell men from women! Monkeys that steal food from humans tend to target women and children because they’re less dangerous if they fight back. Human males are quite intimidating, even then usually being in excess of 150 lbs with a lot of muscle. Men’s body language would be different back then, too. Women and girls back then had to constantly watch their backs because of predatory men. Prey-like behavior triggers the instincts in predatory animals. So does the bouncy gait of a young animal, including human children. It occurred to me that at least some of the deaths could have been murders, too, especially the teen girls and young women. After the first few deaths, legends would spread that there was a monster in the area. A killer could wait for an opportunity, seize his prey, and then kill her and tear her body up and leave it for scavengers. If that was the case, though, someone might have escaped the killer by screaming and drawing attention. All it would take is one witness to start a rumor it was a were-beast.

Absolutely !

There's a French movie called "Brotherhood of the Wolf" that is based on this.

@@josephtardio1086 That is a great movie. Watch it in French not dubbed... The French voices sound amazing and the dubbed ones sound like they are from Sesame street.

I second this theory. The Tasvo African Lion is also known as a man-eater.

but to counter that, if said lions were so rare in menageries, wouldn't that be a well known fact said animal had escaped, even in those times? Also the winters seem pretty damn cold for african lions to survive in those mountains even though they can tolerate some cold those lions aren't suited for snowy hills and cold long winters. I mean if it were true it survived at least several winters there.

Please expound upon the “Tsavo lion” theory. Is that a subspecies that was known & proven to exist in the 1700s or are you reaching desperately tying the real Tsavo maneaters back to this story? It could have been a lion. Could have been a spotted hyena. Though I don’t know of lions decapitating it’s prey. Odd.

There are hundreds is tsavo lions. Literally two in history were maneaters

SOME Tsavo male lions have no mane. And the only reason those two lions resorted to hunting people is because they’d been previously injured by poachers guns, and couldn’t hunt their usual prey

@Cody Last Name nope never was any mountain lion in France. However there are (or were since they are rare now) bobcats, but obviously smaller and only attacking small deers

That's what I was thinking. He would use it to hunt.

Hyenas don't need to be trained to kill, it's in their DNA to hunt and kill.

The thought of a trained hyena is pretty scary. You'd have to be one bmf to be able to pull that off.

From the 1920s on, three different types of wolfdogs were systematically bred in Europe - so, no random mating, but scientifically observed hybridisation in a controlled environment. These experiments resulted in wolfdog breeds, and it quickly turned out, that these animals are not very good at hunting. They're all hybrids between wolves and German Shepherds, so there isn't a hound breed involved to begin with, and German Shepherds are herding dogs, that are only good for policework, because they have a strong protective instinct and are intelligent and therefore very well trainable. But when it comes to hunting, they can't keep up with hound breeds. Leendert Saarloos started it in the Netherlands with his Saarloos Wolfdog project in the 20s. At that time, some European scholars were thinking about reviving the prehistoric fauna of Europe. This meant, that Saarloos was recreating the original "primordial dog", that was still very close to its wolf ancestors. The Brothers Heck (one of them a zoo director) would recreate aurochs and tarpans (= European wildhorses) in Munich in the 1930s. These animals are now known as Heck cattle and Heck horses. After WWII the Czechoslovakian Wolfhound and the Italian Wolfhound were created. The Italian Wolfhound isn't recognised by the FCI and its breeders claim, that it originates from a different European subspecies of wolf. Instead of the much more widespread Eurasian grey wolf, they used Italian wolves. Out of those three breeds, the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog is the only one, that is used as an attack dog, because it was specifically bred for the military, and you can tell, that it's much more doglike than the Saarloos and the Italian. The Saarloos, which has a higher amount of wolf blood, proved in WWII, that it's not suited as a military service dog: German troops raided Saarloos' laboratory and confiscated the dogs, when they took the Netherlands. They had planned to use them as attack dogs, but the dogs got so scared when someone fired a gun, that they all tore through their leashes and ran off, never to be seen again. Saarloos actually make good pets - but they're shy and territorial: Meaning, they hide under the sofa, when somebody visits, who they don't know very well, and they hate the mailman even more than your average dog. What I'm saying is, that it's a bloody stupid idea to breed a wolfdog for hunting purposes. Even if you use hound breeds, the wolf part is chaotic and you end up with an animal, that doesn't follow orders very well and will go and mind its own business, as soon as it's off the leash. The attacks went on for roughly 4 years, so at some point early on the Chastels would have realised, that they should probably just get a hound instead.

@@shaggyrumplenutz1610 This theory has been explored by some people, but they always came to the conclusion, that it would have been suicidal to keep such an animal. Wild hyenas are dangerous enough, but tamed hyenas are worse. They have no fear of humans, and they know that they're stronger than us. The hyena men of Nigeria, who keep hyenas on a chain (in the same fashions as American thugs keep their pitbulls), always make sure that their "pets" have a steel muzzle on and are heavily tranquilised. They're for showing off, not for hunting or assassinating people, because you can't do that with a hyena. Even zookeepers, who work with hyenas and have bonded with theirs since birth, would never trust them enough to enter the compound. You must have a death wish to do that - and remember, that they'll start eating you while you're alive.

im going with a striped hyena

Wilves

It's rare that a regular wolf attacks a human. They are mostly shy and want a gap between us (nowadays they can be very trusting because some people in Europe feeding wolf's like dogs).We humans hunt them to save our sheep's not our lives. When a wolf attacks a human, he must be very hungry or for self defence when the human came to close and he can't escape. But a wolf would hunt other animals before he hunt a human. Predator mostly attack weaker animals.

Sorry buddy. The region in France is indeed pronounced Zhévaudã.

Your grandma told some good tales.

François is definitely pronounced with an "S" sound. The ç makes an "S" sound in English.

Wah le mec chiant

@@theophrastusbombastus1359 Nope

Of course they do, they also bury them

It was actually a Hyena. There's even a documentary called The Real Wolfman, where the team examined taxidermy remains of the Beast. And it came back as a Hyena.

Also it going for the neck. Uniquely big cat

@@gatorcroc7212 the remains were destroyed because they smelled bad. Nice try tho

Mountain lions will drag corpses away and hide them so birds don’t find them and they can return to it a couple times to eat

Love this flick

Pumas do not live here in Europe. So what are you talking about? (And they do not have black fur as a side note.)

@@Diodoron they escaped from a Spanish zoo apparent and for some reason decided to holiday in france

Certainly a probable conclusion. Some peasants clearly had exaggerated their accounts. I believe one claimed the Beast swatted a dog 20 feet through the air, and another claimed it jumped 30 feet.

@@HistoryDose If it did that, then I think it wasn't a wolf, but a kangaroo.

I heard that lions can jump up to 36 feet, so if it was a lion, it's possible. It seemed unbelievable to the poor villagers for sure.

Kinda like biden

I disagree with the natural fear of humans. Some Inuit men actually explained decades ago, that wolves don't care whether their prey wears trousers. They said, that before they had firearms, wolves would often snatch away lone wanderers. But wolves are smart enough to learn what a firearm can do and recognise the smell of gunpowder, so those attacks ceased when the Inuit got a hold of better weapons. If you want to see the beast... There's a cave named Chauvet south of the Gevaudan. It's also known as the Cave of Beasts or Cave of Predators, because unlike other caves with prehistoric art, the animals depicted on its walls are almost exclusively carnivores. It was discovered in the 1994 and seems to have been inhabited by humans about 30.000-40.000 years ago. Apparently, bears had also used it to hibernate together for thousands of years. There are large amounts of bear bones and "nests", i.e. round depressions in the cave floor, where a bear used to curl up for some months, similar to the flat holes huskies dig into the snow to use as beds. Other caves like the famous Lascaux show horses, aurochs, different types of deer, mammoths etc., but Chauvet is full of lions, bears, hyenas, leopards and other predators. It's speculated, that it could have been a cave, where shamanistic rituals took place: The outlines of the paintings are carved into the stone, so that it causes a 3D effect, when you look at them in torchlight. They seem to creep out of the walls. Maybe that was intended: Some stone age shaman went there, tripped on mushrooms and thought he had conjured up those beasts. But, why? To send them after the enemies of his tribe? That's still a mystery. One of the depicted predators is a giant, unidentified creature, that could be a hyena or a wolf. Many have wondered whether that thing was the same species as La Bête. You can find it by searching for "Chauvet hyena", but its face is clearly too doglike and its overall shape doesn't match other depictions of cave hyenas... so I'd say we have something different here. It's drawn with dark orange lines, facing to the right, the front part is spotted, it has very small ears, a dark line of hair between its head and withers and a long snout. In front of its front leg(s), there's a leopard facing to the left. It's significantly smaller than the creature.

Maybe the last of a species of dire wolves? They were said to die out some 9,000 years ago but is it possible?

@@Nick-kw9oz I would go even further back, tbh. When you read Pierre Pourcher's compilation of witness accounts, there are very precise descriptions of the beast: - Size: "As big as a 1 year old calf or a donkey" = about the size of a larger pony - Colour: "reddish brown/orange with a lighter belly and throat, and black marks on the body, specifically a dark stripe on the back" - Fur: "dense, but not overly long, would blur the animal's shape when it moved fast" - Wolflike: "the overall body and face resembled a wolf, but it was far larger", "was usually described as a big wolf" - Not wolflike: "it had a very long tail, with which it could swoop people off their feet", "instead of claws it had 5 little hooves on its front paws", "it was mostly seen alone, without a pack, but in 1766/67 someone reported an adult beast with a cub" - Diet: "it ate its victims", "no other kills (like deer etc.) were found", "it preferred softer parts like organ meat, cheeks and bellies and left behind bony parts like hands and feet", "it explicitly NEVER attacked sheep or goats", "it didn't attack livestock or dogs, except for in one case (when it killed a pig, but didn't eat it; this was seen as a revenge killing), but it roared at cattle and spit blood at them", "it didn't eat the dead, poisoned dogs, that were used as bait" - Hunting method: "it was seen by day and night", "it would typically ambush its victims and rip off their heads", "it preferred children, but would also go after women", "less than 10 men (of ~100 victims) were killed", "it avoided people with firearms, but would attack farmers with scythes and little girls with shepherd staffs and spears", "it was able to climb on stone walls and rocks, but not on trees", "it never entered a building", "it would come very close to buildings, but never tried to open the doors or windows; it followed people into farm yards between buildings in broad daylight" - Voice: "when it prowled villages at night, people heard it laughing and talking to itself in an unknown language, and also whinny like a horse" = the horse sounds could have been caused by its handler; the beast was very fast, and if there was a handler, he had to follow on horseback. But the "talking" was not a conversation between two voices or a voice and animals sounds - it sounded like an animal, that imitates human language - Invincibility: "it was hit by musketballs and bled, but never slowed down or seemed seriously injured", "it ran faster than a horse", "hunters couldn't find a lair", "dogs didn't want to go near it; hounds were reluctant to attack", "in between hunts, it did vanish for weeks, but always came back", "it usually lost its hunters in the mountains, forests and swamps and made a show of going where they couldn't follow" = it's possible, that a handler patched it up and nursed it back to health... but the average musketball rips a 4 inch hole into flesh, and soldiers hit by them would typically bleed out quickly. Of course, it's possible, that it just wasn't hit properly - but that would be strange, because it was a really big target. Maybe it just moved too fast for the hunters to aim well, and even under ideal circumstances, those old-fashioned firearms were not made for precision shots. You basically aimed in a direction and hoped you'd hit, but even with a tripod, muskets could only vaguely aim and the balls would fly in all directions. Concerning the hounds, that didn't want to attack it: Maybe they weren't afraid; it's possible, that the beast smelled wrong - like an animal, that they had been trained not to attack, which would confuse them. There's more. I copied a summary in 2008, so I have a pretty good idea of how those peasants described it. Now, imagine me as a dog: When I read about the hooves, my ears perked up. This may seem too weird to be true, but there was in fact a type of wolflike, carnivorous animal with hooves, that ticks all the relevant boxes: Mesonychids lived between 65-23 million years ago. Their only living relatives today are sheep and goats. They were quite literally carnivorous sheep, that looked like wolves. The BBC showed a giant one in its documentary "Walking with Beasts": Andrewsarchus mongoliensis. That thing was the size of a rhino. Its remains were found in Mongolia, but because it belonged to a very successful and diverse taxon, its relatives' fossils are not exactly rare. They spread from East Asia to Europe and North America, so there WERE definitely mesonychids in France at one point in history. Maybe not rhino-sized, though. If I could get you interested in some pee-staining nightmares... Instead of a dire wolf (that lived in North America and East Asia), imagine this, when you think of the beast: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b8CKftZkvq66lHk.html Compare to the list above. Imho, the BBC took some inspiration from the French witness accounts. They must have recognised the hooves as well, so I bet, that the colouring is a reference to La Bête. And they could have made the Andrewsarchus less wolflike - in fact, some mesonychids more closely resembled pigs... but they went with the full Gevaudan design.

@@unterdessen8822 That description of the beast actually reminds me of the super natural wolf like creature that was said to be hunting cows on skin walker ranch. They described it as a giant wolf that even close range rifle shots would not take down.

@@Nick-kw9oz The wolf, that showed up on their first day and let them pet it, but then tried to pull a calf through the fence by its head? Definitely scary, and if it happened like they said, I would agree, that there's something supernatural going on. But again: Hooves. That really sets the beast apart from everything else. I mean, if a bunch of people had mentioned this in the 20th century, you could argue, that they had read about mesonychids and were making up a monster sighting with some palaeontological data. But those witnesses were 18th century peasants from the back of beyond. If they had heard about fossils at all, they would have believed in the Promethean theory, that came up in ancient Greece and was picked up by the church: Fossilised sealife, for example, was seen as a case of "God practised to create life, but these pieces were too weird and He discarded them." They did not know, that mesonychids had existed - or that the Earth was older than 6000 years, and there had in fact been many species, that went extinct. That French peasants of the pre-industrial era have accurately described a carnivorous wolf with hooves and it turned out, that such animals did exist, means to me, that they could have seen an actual prehistoric animal. I don't know how it got there... but apparently, stone age shamans had tried to conjure up giant murderous beasts in a cave near the Gevaudan region. Who am I to say, that there isn't some sort of portal?

except it laughed

I think about a berber lion. They could survive winters and have sometimes a partially dark fur.

I agree hyena are large and lion Symbolism was common

investigate the Pachycrocuta, in my opinion thats what it was, a reddish, striped, oversized hyena that had remains found in le puy in 1845, and was known to inhabit europe. The effectiveness with killing humans described by historians and archaeologists, matches up with the over exaggerated ferociousness, and the unique factor is covered by if they were still around there would only be a very small amount of them surviving somewhere in europe.

I remember reading in "outdoor Life" when I was a kid about some people on safari and a hyina ate a guys nose while he was sleeping before they were able to scare it away.

@@sethpawlik That's crazy. I don't think I could sleep in a tent in that area of the world.

I think about a berber lion. They are known to survive winters and have sometimes a partially dark fur.

I may have seen the same documentary. I mentioned it above, or maybe it's below I can never find my comments

The documentary about evil hyenas is called “The Lion King.”

@@InigoMontoya- that's hilarious!

It’s a history channel documentary called the real werewolf. Look it up.

@@bryanitza-chulopez1658 thank you

Thought the same thing when I watched the movie years ago, those were some real crappy Hunters the king sent in.

I understand you have worked with lions. I have too and was certain this must have been a lion. But then I considered the mighty roar of a lion. From a mile away, it is intimidating. From close up, it's nerve wracking. I'm confused why none of these accounts ever mention this beast's roar. Ever? So was it a lion?

@@airmanfirstclass3535 The lion's roar certainly carries a long way, as you say, but wolf howls are pretty impressive too.

Ok, arrogant Adam.

The deaths of dozens of people is tabloid news?

No reason to be afraid...unless it's a full moon ;)

Actually,I think in the original story,it was a werewolf and may have actually eaten Little Red Riding.It was ,I think a changed ending ,not to upset children.I think the movie was The Company of Wolves.

@@jameskilrain38 the oldest known version, by Charles Perrault, ends with her being eaten - but it is meant as a parabole against premarital sex.

@@bierwolf8360 Thank you.I did not known it wax meant to be a parabole against extramarital sex.

I would love to hear how Little Red Riding Hood is a parable about premarital sex.

@Nick Sweeney well done Nick.

Why is everyone in America called "joe"?