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.
Mt. St. Elias is a rather forgotten mountain, I think it's less accessible than Mt. Denali. Rises directly out of the sea, the highest coastal mountain in the world. Its vertical rise is at least as tall as Mt. Denali. It looks huge from the photos. Impressive, even if you can get near it, it's probably covered by clouds most of the time. From the same link, the spire measure list ranks Mt. St. Elias as more impressive as Mt. Denali:
Imposing is a matter of size view. You can see Mckinley from a plain of 500-600 meters almost ENTIRELY, without another peaks hiding partially the mountain. See this photo of the north side semi plain:
Mt. McKinley is just a huge piece of stone, badly shaped and not impressive otherwise but for its height. It doesn't stand our of the range. The range is barely accessible. AK Range mountains are severely damaged by earthquakes so there are many slopes that consist not of the whole stone, but of crushed pieces covering the slopes.
Alps have many prominent peaks, like Matterhorn, Jungfrau, Weisshorn, etc., and valleys between mountain are green, welcoming, warm, and covered with flowers. Access is easy. Trains run through the mountains, and you can watch this constantly changing landscape which gives home to thousands of people. Alaska Range is beautiful, especially if you drive from Valdez to Fairbanks, but it's a far-away thing and there is nothing to go there for except for alpinism. In short, Alps are full of life, while Alaska Range is a kingdom of death and vast emptiness.
The Alaska Range sounds beautiful, my main complaint is that it sounds like just one massive (and several somewhat smaller) mountains rising above a plain rather than a sea of large, jagged peaks like the Alps. The Alps sounds a bit too developed, but the Alaska Range is the other extreme, I'd have to visit both.
Is it possible to hike a bit in the Alps and feel like you're out of human civilization completely (just see natural landscapes and few people)? Are there spots uncultivated and off the beaten path?
Is it possible to hike a bit in the Alps and feel like you're out of human civilization completely (just see natural landscapes and few people)? Are there spots uncultivated and off the beaten path?
Being an avid hiker, I'd even say that that's the norm rather than the exception.
Mt. McKinley is just a huge piece of stone, badly shaped and not impressive otherwise but for its height. It doesn't stand our of the range. The range is barely accessible. AK Range mountains are severely damaged by earthquakes so there are many slopes that consist not of the whole stone, but of crushed pieces covering the slopes.
Alps have many prominent peaks, like Matterhorn, Jungfrau, Weisshorn, etc., and valleys between mountain are green, welcoming, warm, and covered with flowers. Access is easy. Trains run through the mountains, and you can watch this constantly changing landscape which gives home to thousands of people. Alaska Range is beautiful, especially if you drive from Valdez to Fairbanks, but it's a far-away thing and there is nothing to go there for except for alpinism. In short, Alps are full of life, while Alaska Range is a kingdom of death and vast emptiness.
You can dislike Alaska range, it's your legit opinion. But you can't deny that the Mt.kingley is a more prominent peak than anything in the whole Alps. It's a fact.
And i think rawness and virginity of a landscape is a key factor to appreciate it more
You can dislike Alaska range, it's your legit opinion. But you can't deny that the Mt.kingley is a more prominent peak than anything in the whole Alps. It's a fact.
And i think rawness and virginity of a landscape is a key factor to appreciate it more
We both are entitled to have opinions I don't like the shape of MtMckinley; besides, it's such a fetish in Alaska, and it's so annoying, that I periodically wish it disappears.
I'm of human race, I like people, their life and their work, so I prefer places where I can see it. I don't care much about vast empty places.
Prominence is easy to measure, but I'm not sure if it's the best way to assess the "impressiveness" of a mountain. Never been to Alaska, but in the Alps, the most prominent mountain, Mt Blanc, didn't feel all that impressive in person. It might stand 4 km above the valley, I didn't get that "wow" factor, even though the valley feels rather claustrophobic. Found this place or that one more impressive.
Some mountains are so big that it's difficult to fathom their size. I suspect Denali is one of those.
As a lot of posters, I find the Alps overdeveloped. It's even part of the Blue Banana the so-called "European Megalopolis". Might be a stretch, but it's definitely lacking in the wilderness aspect.
European alps since it is closer to towns and beautiful castles or mansions make it a perfect setting.
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.
I don't like the shape of MtMckinley; besides, it's such a fetish in Alaska, and it's so annoying, that I periodically wish it disappears.
