If regions of Europe were defined by simplified Topography

Posted by InnerPace

16 Comments

  1. Subalpine is a horrible name. Why? I feel there is some small argument to be made for this ‘simplfied topography’, but the subalpine name is horrible, most of the mountainous and hilly regions precede the Alps by ages.

  2. Midlands is not a topographic/geographic term.

    Better we divite Great Britain into British Highlands and British Lowlands !

  3. PlatformZestyclose67 on

    Never heard of a North European plain in Central Europe, usually it’s just one continuous plain with different regional names or you could draw a difference between the one that was affected by glaciers and the western part that was not.

  4. Subalpine is horrible, even for Simplicity, especially when keeping the Alpenine as a separate distinct name from the Alps.

    A mountain range like Scandinavia has its own name, but the central massif that is as old and high than Scandinavia is sub alpine despite having no relationship to the Alps?

  5. Are Finland, Karelia and Kola supposed to be part of Scandinavia or the East European plain in this? Because neither of those are correct. At the very least Scandinavia should be renamed to Fennoscandia then. But topographically there’s a huge difference between the Norwegian and western Swedish mountains and the glacially scarred Lakeland and swampland of Eastern sweden and Finland. Not to mention the Arctic tundras of Lapland, Finnmark and Kola

  6. Fun fact, there is a spot on the Danube that you could dam and flood all of Pannonia/hungary up to a couple himdred meters deep.

  7. Whew, when I look at a map like this, I understand why we (sport climbers who live in Southwest France) keep going to Spain to find climbing crags. That country is one big mountainous region 😀

    I’m cool with joining Iberia. Spaniards are good fun and have good food.