Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can anybody think of any mountains in the east that REALLY rival those in the west in terms of their relief or how dramatic their appearance is? Certainly the West can't touch the lushness of the eastern mountains and their forests (save for the Pacific Northwest), nor the fall foliage nor the accessibility. That said, you don't find mountains out east like you do in Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, etc., do you? I think maybe the White Mountains in Northern New Hampshire, and perhaps SOME parts of North Carolina, but is there anything else REALLY as dramatic as what you find in the West? I've only been out east in spurts, so I'm curious.
The west is different. When I lived in Chicago I travel east a lot, and had family In San Francisco I drove west. It was nice to see different landscape other than cornfields.
I live in Tennessee, and we do have some dramatic mountain scenery. The Smoky Mountains rise very prominently from the valley, rising over 5500 feet in just a few miles. The elevation at the base of Mt leconte for example is around 1000 feet, and its peak is around 6500 feet. I believe the elevation in Colorado Springs Co is around 6000 feet above sea level, and this is the flat country of the high plains. The mountains rise up abrubtly rising to over 14000 feet at Pikes peak. This is a rise of 8000 feet. That means you will see a 3000 foot higher peak when looking at Pikes Peak then you will looking at Mount LeConte. The Smoky mountains are impressive, and dramatically beautiful, but you will notice the Rockies being somewhat higher, and more rugged. The Rockies are a younger mountain chain, less eroded. The Appalachians are old and worn, they are much greener, much wetter. The waterfalls of the Appalachians are really something. As you pointed out the best places to see high mountains in the east are in North Carolina/Tennessee and in New England in the White mountains. Some parts of the Appalachians have much smaller mountains, like PA, WV for example. The mountains only rise to 3000 or 4000 feet in those places. I believe only TN, NC and NH have mountains over 6000 feet.
While not a mountain, per se, Breakneck Ridge on the Hudson River is one of my favorite scenic viewpoints near New York City in the Hudson Highlands hill range. It's rocky exposure is well demonstrated in this video.
I happen to live next to an extrordinary mountain with huge rock spires and faces here in New Mexico, but there is no water around it and that is part of what gives little Breakneck Ridge its superlative quality. It is even more beautiful in the warmer 3 seasons when the forest is a thousand shades of green and full of flowering shrubs and trees.
My humble opinion is that the Appalachians are basically much higher, much more impressive versions of the same hills of the midwest and upper south.
I'm know I'm going to get a lot of flack and grief, but basically to me, the southern Appalachians are like more spectacular versions of the Ozarks, while Maine and the Adirondacks are more spectacular versions of Minnesotas Sawtooth mountains of upper michigans Porcupine of Huron mountains.
The west is like truly a whole other country with all the variety of climate, ecosystems and geologic formations. The east is beautiful, but in a different way, in a way that if I were leaving IL, yet spent time in the best natural scenery in the midwest, I would go west to experience something truly different. North Carolinas mountains like I said simply feel like Missouri Ozarks on steroids, while New Hampshire mountains feel like Upper Michigans Canadian shield low mountains on steroids.
The West is like going to some exotic land where you never run out of wonders to explore.
Even when you get lots of vertical relief in the East, you won't get the same "cragginess" as in the West, because the Appalachians are so much older.
The major age of mountain formation for the Appalachians was around 480 million years ago, during the Ordovician, when North America began colliding with Europe and Africa. In contrast, the Rocky Mounts formed between 80 and 55 million years ago due to volcanic activity. Thus they've had way less time for wind and water to erode them.
Even when you get lots of vertical relief in the East, you won't get the same "cragginess" as in the West, because the Appalachians are so much older.
The major age of mountain formation for the Appalachians was around 480 million years ago, during the Ordovician, when North America began colliding with Europe and Africa. In contrast, the Rocky Mounts formed between 80 and 55 million years ago due to volcanic activity. Thus they've had way less time for wind and water to erode them.
True, the Appalachia were taller than the Himalayas at one point; after nearly half a billion years they are worn to the stubs. That's why when you show the mountains back east to people from the west, the response is generally: "Are the mountains behind those hills?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
