3

enter image description here

A creature from Greek Mythology; giants with legs that resemble snakes that fought the gods and Heracles in a war (not to be confused with the Titans). Is such a creature possible to make anatomically correct (I know snakes for legs is impossible, but could there be something that resembles it)?

L.Dutch
  • 286,075
  • 58
  • 587
  • 1,230
Richard Lindahl
  • 673
  • 3
  • 9
  • 5
    Note that the Giants (= Gigantes, "Earth-born" in Greek) do not have snakes for legs in any Archaic and Classical poems and visual representations. (The Greek Classical period is the 5th and 4th century BCE; it is followed by the Post-Classical or Hellenistic period.) See many Classical representations of the Giants in the Wikipedia article. The snakes for legs thing is Post-Classical, and even in Post-Classical times it is far from universal. – AlexP Feb 08 '20 at 19:46
  • What is the worldbuilding problem you're trying to solve? This series shouldn't be used to satisfy idle curiosity about mythological creatures. – elemtilas Apr 18 '20 at 20:27
  • The question's not a duplicate, because we're talking about snake-legged giants and not just giants. Therefore there's more than size, and even if only considering size, snake legs would give a big change on how tall they can go. Voted to reopen. – Tortliena - inactive Mar 26 '22 at 11:00
  • 1
    @Tortliena -- It may not be a duplicate, but there's no worldbuilding problem for us to solve either. Also, per AlexP's comment, the verbiage and the image don't match and the question therefore doesn't make sense. If it gets reopened without clarification, I'd VTC it for being unclear. Edits should clarify whether the query is about tritons (the image) or giants (gigantes is just a different etymological form of giants) or anguipeds as the body of the query indicates. – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 03:38
  • @Elemtilas Isn't "making a creature anatomically correct" a worldbuilding problem? Like... I don't know, this one for instance? Regarding clarity, the asker's question takes precedence on AlexP's comment. If a creature named Gigantes is for them a giant humanoid with snake-like legs, then why not? I mean, if their point of reference is the giants of 1st century BC with snake legs, it's their worldbuilding choice, not ours to make. – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 04:09
  • Also, please note that the picture is from wikipedia, which explicitly talks about a specific depiction of titans during the gigantomachy, not tritons (legendary siren-like creatures) or Triton (the sea god). – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 04:13
  • 1
    @Tortliena -- Possibly. This question has lots of other problems as well. One in specific is that the question Is such a creature possible to make anatomically correct is a yes/no. There is no fictional world context, no worldbuilding problem, if the picture depicts titans in stead of tritons, neither of those are giants. I'd still VTC for being unclear. Or maybe opinion based? I'd happily vote to reopen this question if it were edited to address something other than giants and if it were given some context. – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 04:54
  • @elemtilas "Titan" was a misuse of words from me, they're giants. I've reworded the description based on what the ancient Greece Giants are, and revealed the underlying intent of the question. If you ask if a creature is possible in a given context (here more realistic), you're more than likely to want to add the creature in your world and make the work for that. Even if you're just "casually asking", knowing you can reasonably insert them into a world or not, is... Well, a worldbuilding issue, as per the reality-check tag. Otherwise all anatomically correct questions are out of order! – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 12:54
  • @Tortliena Where did you get the idea that OP wanted the critters to be tall enough to "Compete with the Gods"?, or the tallest version possible? We disallow edits that conflict with the intent of the OP. If the OP hasn't indicated that they want specific criteria than adding that criteria is on conflict with their intent. – sphennings Mar 27 '22 at 15:32
  • @Sphennings It was perhaps poorly worded, but I still stand on my point. Because : A) They showed knowledge about what those Giants are, telling me that they want to match the depiction of ancient Greece authors, namely the later ones which tend to make them bigger. Also note that the giants fought the gods :). B) "Giants with legs". C) Are you implying that the persons who thought the question was a duplicate of "how anatomically correct can (non greek) tall giants be" were wrong in assuming the question was asking for tall people? – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 16:08
  • @Tortliena -- I'm not arguing that it was once quite possible that the OP was perhaps planning on maybe considering such a race for his fictional world. That, I think, is a good assumption for this forum! The issues are still two: 1. the OP presents us with a yes/no question, seeking an opinion, not a worldbuilding problem to solve; and 2. the OP is unclear as to what actual creature he's dealing with. That this query was never edited by the OP might just mean that he didn't know about the earlier question and when this one was closed, found the earlier one useful and sufficient. (cont) – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 16:20
  • (cont) -- Now that we're two years out from the original question being closed, rather than mess around with this one, I'd suggest that, if you really believe there is something distinct about this question that can not be answered by the other question, you should write your own question! I like anatomical queries, and if you wrote a non-duplicate query about giants, I for one would love to have a go at answering! – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 16:23
  • @elemtilas I'd suggest then to look out for reality-check questions, because they're meant for "yes/no answers" :). Doubts have been raised regarding legs, like other reality-check and anatomically correct questions did. Regarding the creature being unclear, you're misguided by AlexP's comment, which only notes that it's not the most common description of giants. If having a picture and a mythological reference is not enough for you, then I guess it's time to make a pass on reality-check questions, because some like vampires or medusa only make a brief description, skipping variations.[...] – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 16:38
  • [...] Now asking a new, better question about snake-legged tall people, specifically asking about legs is raising a curious conundrum : Would it be closed for being a duplicate of this question...? I guess it would be (basically the same essence), but then what about the original duplicate x)? It's something to think about. – Tortliena - inactive Mar 27 '22 at 16:39
  • @Tortliena --- Good point about reality check! Indeed those are yes/no queries, and they're designed to be answerable here. *BUT!!!* The querent has to provide the description of the creature or scenario! Are giants possible? is not a reality check query. While I have an Earth-like world with ordinary Greek heroes: are giants as depicted in this frieze, with snakey legs, a realistic addition given the reasonable evolutionary history of this alternate world most certainly is! – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 17:06
  • 1
    @Tortliena --- As far as confusion: AlexP doesn't usually lead astray, but I'm willing to concede the possibility! But more, the marquee question only asks about "giants". Every culture has giants. If one is going to ask about "snake legged giants", then that ought to be the question. That's a simple edit for clarification. Pictures are always nice, but they need to be given context within the query. If I have to slog through thousands of images on google using multiple search queries and then have to research the context of the image, I'm not going to hold myself responsible for (cont) – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 17:09
  • (cont) --- passing on reality check queries! I'm going to VTC and ask for clarification! If you asked a better question about snakelegged giants, I wouldn't VTC it as a duplicate of this closed query. Closed questions are closed. I'd only look to see if your new query is a duplicate of the query this one is a duplicate of! – elemtilas Mar 27 '22 at 17:14

4 Answers4

1

I would say you just have to think about these creatures a little differently to make them work. If they were primarily aquatic, water will support vast amounts of weight and snake-like appendages might even be favorable as a means of propulsion in water. They would be incredibly fierce in the water, like giant octupi, but with bones they could still awkwardly haul themselves onto land. To a hellenistic world, an intelligent whale-octopus would be like a god. Think Moby Dick with tool using.

DWKraus
  • 63,598
  • 4
  • 91
  • 256
0

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "anatomically correct", but I'll give you my take on it.

Let's consider what we see in the image: the whole body, except for the legs, is human. This means that all vital organs are still in the same spot. Most systems would still work exactly the same as a human: respiratory is unaltered, digestive, urinary, reproductive, none is heavily affected by this (we can clearly see their reproductive organs and their butt, so it's safe to assume everything works as intended). They could as well be double amputee and all of that wouldn't change.

Now let's focus on what's different: their legs are covered in scales and shaped like snakes. The scales are the main "anatomical issue" I see. A creature with scales would have most of its body covered by it: think of crocodiles or snakes (since that's what they are). You would only find softer skin on their abdomen (belly), but it would still be very different from human skin. So for it to be "anatomically correct", you would need most of the body to be covered in scales, much like the reptilians we see in many fantasy and sci-fi movies, OR have those legs be covered in human skin (which also implies hair). As for the shape, while I don't see the evolutionary benefit of having two snake-like tails instead of your legs (it would work best either having only one larger tail, kinda like Medusa had, or several appendiges working similar to an octopus tentacles), it's not necessarily an anatomical impossibility. This would obviously imply a big difference in both your muscular structure and your nervous and cardiovascular systems, but not necessarely impossible (again, very unlikely something evolved this way, but that's not the point).

The last question becomes "How would you move around?". Having two appendiges kind of implies you alternate one to the other, just as we do by taking steps with our legs. It would look very weird and probably less stable than a human walk, but it could work. It's very unlikely, especially if covered in skin instead of scales, that you would slide similarly to how a snake does. On the plus side, it would most likely improve your swimming capability.

Hope it helps.

Mr_Bober
  • 1,402
  • 6
  • 12
0

Realistically, giants of any kind are probably not possible. This is because of the square-cube law. This says that if you take a regular person and scale them up by double, they're not twice as big... they're twice as long. Instead their volume will be about eight times larger. This is a problem, because all of your bones have gotten twice as big (and can support twice the weight) but your actual weight is about eight times what it was previously. If you grow your creatures too large, and they "look" like they did before you inflated them, their bodies will be too large to support their own weight.

This leads to a lot of the phenomena we observe about large and small creatures. Ants can carry hundreds of times their own body weight. Fleas can jump the equivalent of a 10-story building. On the other end of the scale- elephants can't jump. If you drop an elephant from a height of 12 inches you will shatter every bone in their legs. The largest creatures on earth, whales, don't have to support nearly as much body weight as their land-dwelling counterparts. If you put a whale on land it will suffocate under its own weight.

Consider a rectangular prism, that has a depth D, a width W, and a height H.

The length of the cuboid is the maximum of D, W, and H.

The volume of the cuboid is D*W*H.

Suppose an average man is two feet wide, one foot deep, and six feet high. Their length is 6 feet, but their volume is 12 cubic feet. If we scale that up by two, then they're four feet wide, two feet deep, and twelve feet high. Their length is 12 feet, but their volume is 96 cubic feet. If we double the size again, then we have a giant that is eight feet wide, four feet deep, and twenty-four feet high. Their bones and other body structures are designed to handle weight that is four times the original man, but the giant's body weight is 768 times their original weight.

So any giant thing that looks like a regular size thing is generally not physically feasible, no matter what you're talking about.

But that doesn't mean that giant things aren't feasible, we build skyscrapers and things like that every day. They just have to respect the square-cube law. Some tips for building giant things:

  1. Use super-strong materials, expressed as tensile or compressive strength. We don't build skyscrapers out of wood, we build them out of steel. Steel has an incredible strength-to-weight ratio. Steel is roughly six or seven times stronger than wood is given the same amount of mass (and steel is much denser, so the volume of mass there is much smaller). Carbon nanotubes are roughly 125 times stronger than steel given the same amount of mass.

  2. Make things thicker on bottom than top. The bottom of a structure has to carry all of the weight of the structure above it, while the top only has to carry the weight of the top. Even in people, your thickest and most substantial bones are in your legs because your legs carry all of your weight. Many buildings, even if they look uniform on the outside, have stronger and thicker structural elements at the bottom than at the top.

  3. Supercharge your creatures. Dinosaurs grew much larger in their time than we do today, because resources were plentiful and the atmosphere had a higher oxygen content. This allowed more efficient metabolism and bigger total growth. There are many theories as to why "megafauna" evolve and thrive when it seems clear that smaller size is a clear advantage in numeracy.

  4. Lighten the load. You could reduce gravity on your planet, so larger everything can happen. (This is maybe a cop-out, because then your people would be larger too, so your giants wouldn't be as giant.)

So, what do you need for snake men? You need great big legs with big bones in them, perhaps more than two (more like an octopus). You have a smaller torso with skinny arms on top, though your snake men still need to be able to throw their body weight around and exploit their size. Maybe you could have metal skeletons or something too.

David
  • 1,523
  • 8
  • 10
-2

The only way I could think of a creature like this evolving is if it is either extraterrestrial, or from another dimension.

This is because, with the exception of conjoined twins, there are no organisms on Earth that have two or more heads.

If this creature isn’t from Earth however, I do have a good idea. It’s feet could actually be highly evolved mouths, that the Gigantes uses to eat.

Daikyu Maryu
  • 1,173
  • 7
  • 13