What do you consider America's answer to the Alps? (rated, winter)

[Thealpinist]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Geologically, the Rockies.

Culturally, the Appalachian Mountains.

Culturally the Appalachia’s have nothing in common with the alps.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Thealpinist

Culturally the Appalachia’s have nothing in common with the alps.

Then it's a good thing the question isn't which U.S. region has the most in common with the Alps culturally.

[marino760]

I'm not sure why the Appalachians and Ozarks are even in the poll. They really are opposites in many ways with the Alps, virtually having nothing in common with the choices given IMO. The Ozarks aren't even technically mountains. The Sierras might have been my pick if they were listed. I also think the Alps are more culturally diverse than people give them credit for. Although predominantly German culturally, there is also Italy and France that shares them so you can throw that diversity into the mix.

[Turnerbro]

Toss up between the Rockies and Sierra Nevada mountains. Ozarks don’t belong in this poll.

[SunGrins]

I don't think Europe has a match for most of the North American mountain ranges.

The Appalachians are longer than any European mountain range.

The Rockies could cover most of western Europe.

The Sierras have the highest peak and greatest vertical prominence in the lower 48 states -- Mt. Whitney has a prominence of over 10,000 feet.

Denali and Mt. Logan are higher than Europe's highest peak (Mt. Elbrus).

The Cascades are mostly an impressive scenic chain of prominent volcanoes.

The Ozarks are not a mountain range but a deeply dissected and eroded plateau with an ancient Precambrian granite basement that is exposed in the St. Francois Mountain remnants in eastern Missouri -- not really a contender in a mountain contest.

Europe's Caucasus Mountains are probably the most impressive followed by the Alps.

[Thealpinist]

Originally Posted by SunGrins

I don't think Europe has a match for most of the North American mountain ranges.

The Appalachians are longer than any European mountain range.

The Rockies could cover most of western Europe.

The Sierras have the highest peak and greatest vertical prominence in the lower 48 states -- Mt. Whitney has a prominence of over 10,000 feet.

Denali and Mt. Logan are higher than Europe's highest peak (Mt. Elbrus).

The Cascades are mostly an impressive scenic chain of prominent volcanoes.

The Ozarks are not a mountain range but a deeply dissected and eroded plateau with an ancient Precambrian granite basement that is exposed in the St. Francois Mountain remnants in eastern Missouri -- not really a contender in a mountain contest.

Europe's Caucasus Mountains are probably the most impressive followed by the Alps.

The biggest difference I see with Europe vs. North America is that essentially all of the western ranges are part of the greater Western Cordillera. There are many subranges that cover a much greater area over the entire western continent. Some of those subranges are similar but different in many ways.

The Alps just cover a much smaller area in comparison.

[grega94]

Can’t it be argued that the Alps, Dinaric Alps, and Carpathian Mountains all form one long mountain chain? Technically they do form the Alpide belt along with the Himalayans. After all the Rockies are also made up of sub ranges as well. Furthermore the Scandinavian Mountains are pretty lengthy as well. If you place Norway on top of the US it would stretch from Atlanta up to Montreal. And don’t forget about the Urals either.

Mountain Range: length, height, width, area
Rocky Mountains: 3,000 mi, 14,440 feet, 400 mi, 300,000 sq mi
Appalachian Mountains: 2,050 mi, 6,684 ft, ?, ?
Ural Mountains: 1,600 mi, 6,217 ft, 93 mi, 301,584 sq mi
Carpathian Mountains: 1,100 mi, 8,711 ft, ?, 72,587 sq mi
Scandinavian Mountains: 1,100 mi, 8,100 ft, 200 mi, 310,397 sq mi
Coast Mountains: 990 mi, 13,186 ft, 190 mi, 130,102 sq mi
Caucasus Mountains: 750 mi, 18,510 ft, 99 mi, 184,234 sq mi
Alps: 750 mi, 15,776.7 ft, 160 mi, 77,000 sq mi
Apennine Mountains: 750 mi: 9,554 ft, 160 mi, ?
Cascade Range: 700 mi, 14,411 ft, 80 mi, 58,000 sq mi
Brooks Range: 700 mi, 8,976 ft, 150 mi, ?
Alaska Range: 620 mi, 20,310 ft, ?, 55,889 sq mi
Dinaric Alps: 401 mi, 8,839 ft, ?, 77,000 sq mi
Sierra Nevada: 400 mi, 14,505 ft, 80 mi, 24,370 sq mi
California Coast Ranges: 400 mi, 8,098 ft, ?, ?
Pyrenees: 305 mi, 11,168 ft, ?, ?

[Thealpinist]

Originally Posted by grega94

Can’t it be argued that the Alps, Dinaric Alps, and Carpathian Mountains all form one long mountain chain? Technically they do form the Alpide belt along with the Himalayans. After all the Rockies are also made up of sub ranges as well. Furthermore the Scandinavian Mountains are pretty lengthy as well. If you place Norway on top of the US it would stretch from Atlanta up to Montreal. And don’t forget about the Urals either. ?

No. The difference is those ranges in Europe are not connected and don’t cover a large area like the Western Ranges of North America which basically cover the entire western side of the continent from Mexico all the way to Alaska.

The Urals are thousands of miles east of the Alps and the ranges of Scandinavia are well north. They are not connected.

Europe has the Variscan orogenic belt which is geologically related but covers a much smaller area. For all intents and purposes it’s pretty hard to tell the difference in North America where one range ends another begins at times. This is especially apparent in Western Alberta and British Columbia. The Rockies essentially merge with the Coastal Ranges and that area alone is massive stretching thousands of miles.

The Alps just cover a much smaller area and North America just has quite a bit more mountainous area compared to Europe.

[marino760]

Originally Posted by Thealpinist

No. The difference is those ranges in Europe are not connected and don’t cover a large area like the Western Ranges of North America which basically cover the entire western side of the continent from Mexico all the way to Alaska.

The Urals are thousands of miles east of the Alps and the ranges of Scandinavia are well north. They are not connected.

Europe has the Variscan orogenic belt which is geologically related but covers a much smaller area. For all intents and purposes it’s pretty hard to tell the difference in North America where one range ends another begins at times. This is especially apparent in Western Alberta and British Columbia. The Rockies essentially merge with the Coastal Ranges and that area alone is massive stretching thousands of miles.

The Alps just cover a much smaller area and North America just has quite a bit more mountainous area compared to Europe.

Yes and people forget or don't think about that the Alps exist because Italy is pushing northward into Europe. That's why they don't form a long range. It's a similar thing with India pushing into Asia but on a much larger scale forming the Himalayan Mountains.

[NDak15]

The Teton Range, hands down.