Greenland has mountains too... So Greenland has icy dessert, mountains, forest and glaciers... While Antarctica has glaciers and mountains... If the two or more climates to be a continent rule is to be taken seriously, Antarctica is not a continent... And if Antarctica is not a continent and the no region is bigger than any continent rule is to be taken seriously then Australia is not a continent...
The message at 3:37: "You could argue that Antarctica is also a single region. While this is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 different regions, glacier and mountains."
The Blinking Text that was at 3:37: "You could argue that Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is Significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least 2 distinct regions, glaciers and mountains." Hope that helped.
But the two 'regions' as defined by biomes, or precipitation and surface cover, are homogenous based on the Atlas Pro's criteria. Ergo, they are one region by his criteria (but also two continents because of the Transantarctic mountains).
There aren't really mountains range who divided Africa thought he could have use the sahara who is essentially a flat mountain since it divided the north africans from the subsaharan africans. Relative to America, the only mountain ranges are the Appalachians, the Rockies and the Andes which if used would only isolate the coast from the Inside of the continent which doesn't really make sense to me. Moreover I think it would be smaller than Greenland just because the space between the coast and those mountains is so thin.
@@rasho2532 North America, has three large mountian ranges. One along each coast and one closer to the center, the Rockies. I just checked my globe and a split along the Rockies would give two parts larger than Greenland.
@@Danilaschannel Ohhhhh!!!! I thought you were giving a Name for India that starts with 'A' but doesn't sound as bad a 'Aindia', maybe I thought that was the case because of the reply above yours. I just subconsciously thought that way because of that reply which is above yours.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin I guess, but then I can say the EU is east of everything right? When we say something is east of something else, we usually mean directly east of it.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin thats not really true. If u go straight east in europe, ull never reach south america. North east south west are set. If you allow any direction in between (say north north west) then yes anything is possible
10:13 it's not the mountains that kept people away, but the harsh climate of Siberia. Just like the Sahara has historically been a barrier to human expansion to and from sub Saharan Africa.
I think the "achaemenid" and anarabian continents should be one. They seem kinda too small on their own (especially when you factor in the population) to be continents
Let's split up the Eurasia by the mountains that were historically difficult for humans to get past! But also let's just ignore all the other mountains that did the same thing around the world
@@monster_madeline no he makes sense, they made a criteria that he applied to only one continent but not the others when a huge chunk of the other criteria emphasized how we needed to be consistent. If a criteria for a continent include the natural border made by mountain ranges as their limits them north america should also have been divided.
Notice that he explained all of the units that are almost a foot, and that is why it is the best, not the American foot itself is best just because it is American.
In my opinion, Anatolia-Arabia should be called Asia in this division instead, because the earliest usage of the term Asia referred to Anatolia. The Central, North, East and Southeast Asia can have a different name altogether but I don’t have a name in mind yet
His definition of a 'region' is really weird; he might be getting it confused with biomes. I think most people would classify a region more along human terms rather than geological. Instead of drawing the boundaries based on where the land is roughly the same, you'd want to go by demographic details. I think he focused too much on simplifying the terms and ended up jumbling them up in his head. Btw, dick move just ignoring the East Indies :/
Because continents are a human construct, especially when we're using them to talk about our own populations. Europe only exists because we as people decided to differentiate it as such. We should use a demographic construct to base our 'scale' on rather that Greenland of all things. He took his own scales analogy a bit too literally.
@@BWOBLACKHEART Agreed, I prefer Massamans continents over these mostly because it's based off of the demography of each region rather than geographical proximity if that makes sense.
There should be separate units for physical regions and human regions, if you really want to make well-defined physical regions. Most people would just prefer to use human regions imo. It's easier for people now to understand someone saying that Iran is in the Middle East versus Iran is in Asia, even though both are true.
I tend to divide Asia into these subcontinents: *East Asia:* The only region I used to associate with Asia growing up, before I knew better. Stretching from China & Mongolia to Japan, and from the Koreas to Taiwan. *Southeast Asia:* Indochina and the Malay archipelagos. I sometimes lumped this one together with the rest of East Asia, mostly because of the similarities in phenotypes. *Indian Subcontinent:* India and the countries which it borders *Central Asia:* All the -stan countries minus Pakistan. I was barely aware of this region until a few years back when I realized how distinct they were from their neighbors in the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent. *Middle East:* The Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Mesopotamian region, the Caucasus, Anatolia, + Egypt and Iran, though I now realize that Iran has more connections to Afghanistan. Which makes sense when you consider the fact that the two are part of Greater Iran Edit: forgot about *North Asia* or Russian Siberia
@@ThisAlias Afghanistan is definitely at least half Central Asian. "Middle East" is a political classification and usually it includes Egypt (look at wikipedia).
@@lettuce9466 Why does that matter? Climate can be very similar at totally different latitudes. For example, Greenland and Antarctica have incredibly similar climates, yet are on completely opposite latitudes.
Continent: A large landmass defined by Geography alone Sub-continent: A large region within a continent that is defined by a mix of Culture and Geography.
I think the divisions he made in the last part of the video are what we should perhaps call "sub-continents", and then just leave Eurasia as the actual "continent". But there is still the issue that someone mentioned above which relates to applying that rule for sub-continents to the other continents, especially North and South America which have significant mountain ranges that create those same natural divides. This suggests that both North and South America should contain sub-continents, when there are areas separated by mountains and those areas are also larger than Greenland. Perhaps that may only apply to North America, because the land area west of the Andes is actually quite small and I'm don't think it would be larger than Greenland.
By that logic there would be millions of continents including Afro-Eurasia, Madagascar, and a random rock in the middle of the ocean. That's only shifting the confusion from the word "continent" to the word "large."
@@benjidavidoff3784 Maybe put bathymetry in there as well? If waters between continents are shallow enough to have been connected during past glacial periods, then they are part of that continent.
@@niku.. Italy plus Balkans is large enough. A line stretching the combined length of the Alps and Carpathians would make more sense than the Urals if looking at history before about 500 CE.
I can't believe Atlas never mentioned the concept of tectonic plate boundaries in this video. I think Europe and Asia are separate because of their diversity, not their separation due to landforms.
@@asterozoan The long distance between Mediterranean empires and Chinese empires, and the vast, empty land in the middle being comparably way less hospitable, makes cultural cross-pollination almost impossible for early empires. The only geographical factor keeping these cultures distant isn't due to 2 continents, but being on the opposite sides of a massive continent. The trade route from Middle East to China is so difficult to travel that it is mostly used by local nomadic tribes, and Europeans preferred sailing around the African continent to get to Asia.
How many times do you use the gigameter or the nanometer? Unless you’re a scientist, you don’t use this. Same with the imperial system. No one uses chains or furlongs. For the average person, centimeter is smallest and kilometer is biggest
Theoretically, I think you could also split the islands of Indonesia by the Wallace line and incorporate those sides into either Asia or Australia. Just my personal thinking
I have to wonder what's wrong with the term "subcontinent" to describe major subsections of the larger continents. It's been in use for ages to describe South Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent). Europe is really a subcontinent of Eurasia. Both regions are not just defined by mountain ranges but by culture and historical ties. Eurasia could be broken into quite a few logical subcontinents. Africa could be broken into at least two (North Africa and Subsaharan Africa). I'm not sure if the concept of subcontinents could easily be imported into the Americas. Perhaps in a cultural sense in North America (Latin America versus the US/Canada) but that's almost exclusively cultural whereas the Old World examples were cultural groups divided by a geography. Also, why not consider tectonic plates in the description of continent if you aren't factoring in culture? They provide one of the best logical reasons to consider North and South America to be separate continents... because a few million years ago, they literally were until the collided.
I generally agree with the subcontinents thing, but my gripe with the tectonic plates is, if you really follow them, they'll make North America subsume a huge chunk of Siberia, which makes little intuitive sense.
@@maczetamaczeta189 But didn't apply it to the parts of America split by mountains? Most specifically the sierra nevada mountain range, which stretches all the way up into British Columbia in Canada which separate the coast from the rest of the land.
@@JustANervousWreck Actually, if you look at a map of the first settlers of America, you'll see the Sierra Nevada mountains almost perfectly lining the western border for the indigenous great basin peoples, they don't live on the other side of the mountains, just cause it's all the same country in 'Murica, doesn't mean it's not a divide, though if I'm wrong please correct me.
It's a failed (to me) attempt at convincing people Europe should be a continent. I'm at least glad he made India its own continent. Those who argue it shouldn't, but Europe should, are.... well... just wrong.
@@Jam77229 oh i see. You sure explained your point very well as to why they're wrong and why you're the one in the right. Truly exemplary arugumentation.
@Dieter Gaudlitz it's about how different the culture is from Europe to Asia, while people from the other continents share some similarities, Europeans and Asians have nothing in common
3:36 "You could aruge that Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 distinct regions, glacier and mountains." Thank me later.
1. 1:28 East of Russia? You sure bout that? 2. 3:35 You could aruge? That Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Trans-Antarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 distinct regions, glacier and mountains. (For those who couldn't catch it) All jokes aside though, this channel is incredible. Watched through the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed it :)
@@hernandostefanamisola8043 in many European countries the decimal point is , and the comma every 3 digits is . Doesn't make it any less confusing tho 😅
@@infernalstan886 honestly, if we give the US shit for not officially adopting metric, we should give those EU nations reversing comma and period shit too.
You can definitely make a arguement that they should but his criteria still isn't broken by the Alps or the Pyrenees since Iberian and Italian Peninsulas are both smaller than Greenland.
@Finn MickCool By the video's logic, we could call (A)India, (An)Arabia, (Aecheamenid)Iran, AND (no A?)Europe "subcontinents". Which I'd be OK with, really.
You might as well have kept going by your definition. East africa seperates from the rest of Africa from the ethiopian highlands and the great rift. North america can be split 4 ways. Everything East of the appalachian mountains, everything west of the Rocky Mountains, everything south of the sierra nevada. Leaving everything between the rockies and appalachians from the gulf of mexico to the arctic as one continent. South america can stay whole or chile ecuador and peru might be seperate. I love your videos but this was bad in so many ways.
It's more about the historical impact of the mountain ranges on the movement of peoples. With the Andes, the only example would be the Inca, but they actually lived on both sides of the Andes and were limited more by their distance to the coast than the mountains. For the Appalachians and Rockies, there were never any expanding empires in north America until the American frontier, which was certainly not stopped by the mountains.
yeah this was awful. The definition of words come from common agreement. He had a similar video on the Caspian sea which was just as moronic. Ugh he has some really good content but every 4th video or so is a giant miss.
Asc saaxiib. He should split east Africa as well because of the distinctive people there, and at 11:44 he has three mistakes 1. Arabia is spelled anarbia 2. He is missing Europe 3. Another continent is missing, therefore there aren't the ten he originally stated
This is silly. If you're willing to make arbitrary decisions purely out of convenience and not any kind of objective physical reason, then embrace it. Just make the continents themselves that arbitrary decision and leave it at that. There's no need for any of these ridiculous post-hoc rationalizations that serve no other purpose than essentially just to arrive at the arbitrary decision that you want. Continents are like countries- they're just convenient social constructions humans agree to use simply because it makes some things easier. This obsession of trying to make everything have to be based on consistent rules with a physical basis is pointless.
It's not any more pointless than theoretical physicists coming up with theories that fit their preconceived notions of how the universe should work. Actually, those people are kind of pointless... We need new ideas based on the real world! I think AP is going about this the right way, but his mountain range rule has somewhat to be desired. That or it would need to be expanded. I actually think that the eurasian continent makes sense, but we may need to invent a new word for the descriptions that are smaller than a continent and larger than a single region, tho, thinking about regions, they basically already cover the larger bits of land people often reference.
The meter was arbitrarily chosen from a not so arbitrary number: the distance from the pole to the equator. The number 10 million is arbitrary. The same principle applies here backwards. Arbitrary rules, not arbitrary lines
Slight adjustments - 1. Include Japan, S.Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei with Oceania. 2. Include Ireland, Uk Iceland and other European islands with Europe and include other islands with their respective continents. 3. Merge Achaesia with Arabia. 4. Combine Aindia with Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam.
Even though arbitrary definitions can be understood, all you have done is divide Asia into 4 parts and give borders to the continents. Why divide only Asia into parts? Aren’t there mountain ranges in South America and North America? Don’t deserts also act as boundaries to human expansion?
He explined why he only divided Eurasia. Because Eurasia is fucking big and populous so he created these more comfortable names to use in everyday language. What comes to your mind when you think of Africa? Pretty solid picture. Now imagine a single picture of Eurasia. East Asia's architecture, India's populous streets, Russia's vast Siberia, the Arabic world and Europe. That's too many. That's why he divided Eurasia. Officially there would still only be Eurasia, but in the everyday language you'd use Europe, Asia, Aindia, Achaemia and Anarbia. Although my personal opinion would be to merge Anarbia and Achaemia
What you are calling "continents" inside Eurasia (a real continent) are subcontinents, or regions. What you are calling "regions" are biomes. There's no problem in having a giant continent like Eurasia, because It's just reality. Also, continents should be defined by their continental shelf. Greenland is inside North Americas shelf, the British isles, Japan, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, Borneo and Java are in Eurasias shelf, and so on. That's why Greenland isn't a continent.
@@dacadz I am aware of the situation in east Siberia, but remember the CONTIGUOUS part of the definition of a continent. The North American Continent stops at the Bering Strait, at least today. If it were the last glacial maximum, North America would end not far as well, somewhere in Beringia, which would be the thinnest point of the Landmass to be one single Biome/Region. Iceland is outside the main North American continental shelf. It is an island between Eurasia and North America. Japan is split between the Amur and Okhotsk plates, no part of Japan would be considered North America. Furthermore, Japan is a continuation of the Eurasian Continental Shelf, so it is more closely tied to Eurasia.
I'm not exactly sure where I would draw the line exactly, but somewhere in the south-west United States or in Mexico, there should be a divide, with the northern side being North America and the southern side being Central America. These two regions have been completely different for millennia, so grouping them as one and the same doesn't make sense. The rule about continents being divided by mountains only seems to apply to Eurasia, which doesn't make sense, when the Rockies and Andes mountains exist. Also by the region argument, Antarctica is actually far less diverse in it's regions than Greenland. If having multiple regions on a continent is a prerequisite, then Antarctica does not qualify. Since it doesn't qualify, we have to exclude anything smaller than it, so sorry Australia, Europe, Aindia, Anarabia, and Achaemia.
Yes the Rockies and the Andes Mountains exist and are rather large mountains but they don't completely cut off an area from the rest on the world(like the himalias and the caucuses), they just stop in the middle of there respective continents. Also the United States and Canada have not been "compleatly different for melenia" from Central America and Mexico, the indegeounous people(who have lived there for melenia) dont just sudenly become "compleatly different" on this magical line.
For me i am also against considering achemania and anarabia two different continents... Because actually they were heavly related to each other for mellinia. However, I agree that China and Saudi arabia should not be at the same continent. They were not ever in one empire, even the mongols were not able to do that 😅
Yes but the American mountains divide the primary landmass along one of the widest parts, not creating as distinguishing separations, whereas the Eurasia divisions seem to. The main separating feature of the land masses into continents being bodies of water, the Ural divides seem to make a degree of sense since it divides with the geographically notable bodies of water. Not sure I agree with being completely separate continent, but for subcontinent it makes more sense than the americas. I think the American ranges are more useful for regional separation rather than landmass separation.
The problem I have with the Achaemenid continent is that no one empire has been able to conquer an entire continent. The Persians just had mountains as their shield to the outside world. Same with Italy.
Precisely. Foots are so inconsistent that every country he mentioned came up with different results. I'll stick with what I'm using right now, thank you. I can also say meter is intuitive, because it's half of the tall human.
Metres are good for human scale stuff. Easy to pace out. The prefix cluster around unity is largely useless. About the only time any of its members get used is for centimetres and hectares.
Here are my thoughts to get all As : Æuropa (Europe) Africa (Africa) Asia (Eastern Asia) Archæsia (your Achemia, your Anarabia + Caucasus all in one) Abharata (India) Amazonia (South America) Anahuaca (North America) Australia (Oceania) Arctica (Greenland) Antarctica (Penguinia)
@@user-pakshibhithi10 close, i am from Thrace and i am a Bulgarian muhacir which basically means muslim who came back to Turkey after loss of territories in Caucasus and Balkans
@@Shadowaucifer half of the Asian counties, like Pakistan for example, are now split between two continents. Like how Russia is in both Europe and Asia.
It’d actually be split further as really there are many mountain ranges that run alongside the Rockies and have land masses in-between them, or, in the case of the west coast, a landmass between mountains and ocean. Though he said it’d have to be larger than Greenland so there isn’t a west coast continent.
@@danielduvernay3207 Most of these mountains are taller than the Urals (The Urals are really comparable to the Appalachians. The Appalachians are slightly higher, but shorter.) I also forgot to mention that Alaska may as well be its own continent.
@@typhonsentra In terms of length the range is 100 miles longer. In terms of height they don't seem to dissimilar either. You need to be more specific.
I have defined political continents. I had draw a graph of countries and their geographical connections. Then I use automatic clusterisation tools, and found they are clustered in 8 continents. Africa became two continents, Europe lost Iberian peninsula to North Africa, Middle East was a separate continent, and Indonesia went to Australia+Oceania (I've used EEZ borders as a reference).
Aaah the Metric system... pure perfection. 10mm = 1cm. 100cm = 1m. 1000m = 1km etc. Fit together like a puzzle. Inch, Foot, Yard, ... make no sense together
@@teathesilkwing7616 well greenland has more climates then antarctica which would mean antarctica isn't a continent also meaning australia isn't either
When you highlight Antarctica at 4:27 you highlight all the ice in addition to all the land but your definition refers to landmasses so... I am now unreasonably angry about a tiny thing
News: the subcontinent of "India" has been studied, redefined and it unanimously agreed to be renamed "Aintindia" Indians: loses their minds Pakistani: ROFL
@@nmvhr India cannot be a subcontinent because it's geologically different despite geographically merging with Iranic and Turkic countries and Sinospheric-cultured areas.
@@sadaypratyush5191 Of course Pakistan and India are culturally distinct. Pakistan is an Islamist theocracy while India is a majority-Hindu secular state. Pakistan speaks Urdu and India speaks Urdu. It's also widely accepted that clan identity is more common in Pakistan due to a weaker nation state. It's not a stark contrast like say, China and Russia, but it doesn't have to be. It's very hard to get people past their petty power struggles even with negligible cultural differences; otherwise, the US and Canada would have united decades or centuries ago. Pakistan and India are the king and queen of petty squabbling, which further compounds the problem.
I think the line separating Achaemenia from the rest of Asia should be along the Karakorum and Tien Shan Mountains, basically including the rest of the stans.
You forgot about impenetrable deserts, which divide continents just like mountain ranges. Technically speaking Africa and North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt etc.) are completely different continent separated by the Sahara desert. North Africa might be considered part of Anarabia as well, but it is a bit tricky, because it is also significantly influenced by Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Italy/ancient Rome, Spain etc.).
You could also have the mountain range of China, which divides West and East China. Note that East China contains 94% of its population so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to use it, and it would divide the Typical asian stereotype (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) from the nomadic tribes of Central Asia and West China
Can we really argue that a system that separates Europe from India but not India from China is functional though? Because the differences are pretty on-par.
i mean, continents are just mostly informal labels for landmasses, alongside the oceans which are also rather arbitrary. from a holistic point of view, continents + oceans = 100% of earth's surface. that's really all it is... if you wanna go more detailed, continents and oceans are never precise enough. but if you were an alien trying to figure out which quadrant of the planet you're at, the ocean/continent labels give you a rough guide. for politics and human geog, you simply gotta zoom in to national borders, regional groupings, demographic distribution, etc. for phy geog, it's always been continental shelves and plate tectonics, no? which is why india is a sub-continent and there is debate about whether zealandia could be considered a continent. so "continents" are just the names given to segments of the earth's crust delineated by major fault lines, right?
I disliked the idea of adding a letter for aesthetic reasons, so i thought it's name could be "the Indic continent" or Sindhia, since the name India stems from "Sindh" as far as i know...
At the least, you can just combine Achaemia and Anarbia together to form the Middle East. For the most part, you basically just recreated all the continents we have already established with extra smaller continents but I'd be fine with Aindia and/or the Middle East being established as separate continents.
I would still say that continents should contain nearby islands with a central landmass. Oceania could be a continent, including Zealandia, Papua New Guinea, and Polynesia and Micronesia. South America could take half the Caribbean, North America the northern half and Greenland, and Europe (or whatever Axxxa name it takes under this new system) could still have the northern Mediterranean, the British Isles, and Iceland.
Why do you ignore the geological definition of a continent? That is a real, concrete definition of continents which coordinates roughly to our human concept of the term
There's a number of spots where the plates just don't play nicely with the landmasses. For example, the tectonic boundary or North America and Asia cuts through Siberia while the Bering Strait is just a low spot that happens to dip under sea level.
EDIT: I put the below argument in a little video of my own: ua-cam.com/video/98rjgVzLdXE/v-deo.html Now, first of all, by any measure Greenland and Antarctica are the same except size. Greenland has significant mountains as well, therefor having two of your regions. Second, 10 being a nice number is arbitrary as our number base is. Was 6 for a long time as evident by clock numbers. Third, I wholly disagree with the Urals being any measure of geographic division, as they are just too small for bigger divisions than a region. By my measure, actually no mountain should divide. They are large to humans, but on a continental scale, mountains are actually quite flat. Also most places have mountain-ranges and it feels un-useful to divide South America along the Andes. My definition would be simple: 1. Landmass of at least 1 Million km², fully divided from other Landmasses by navigable waters, whereby these waters must be at least 1km wide for at least 90% of the circumference. This would lead to the Contintents of (descending in size): 1. Asia, including northern Caucasus. 2. Afrika (seperate continent since existence of Suez canal) 3. North America 4. South America (seperated since Panama Canal) 5. Antarctica 6. Australia 7. Europe, ending at the Volga River, not including Fennoscandia (Volga-Baltic-Canal & Volga-Don-Canal create full enclosure by water, the massive width of the Volga ensures the 90% rule.) 8. Greenland (almost 3 times as large as the next largest island, it deserves this.) 9. Fennoscandia: The Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland, Karelia and Kola. (water enclosure by the white-sea-baltic-canal) There we go, simple rule, no exceptions, 9 continents that are useful terms for the scale and no continental border over land. It creates several new intercontinental cities though, joining Istanbul would be St. Petersburg and Rostov.
1:16 easy British Isles (just Ireland after stupid brexit) Major 2 Iberian states France Benelux Germany Italy Slovenia Croatia The 4 countries at the heart of Europe Poland Romania Bulgaria Greece Malta Cyprus Scandinavia except Norway
“A region can’t be a continent”
Antarctica: *nervous sweating*
Actually its larger than greenland, so it is a continent
Antarctica has mountains which are different from glaciers, but Greenland has A forest
@@mahnoor735 in order to be a continent it must meet all requisites.. having multiple climates is a requirement he stated...
Greenland has mountains too... So Greenland has icy dessert, mountains, forest and glaciers... While Antarctica has glaciers and mountains...
If the two or more climates to be a continent rule is to be taken seriously, Antarctica is not a continent...
And if Antarctica is not a continent and the no region is bigger than any continent rule is to be taken seriously then Australia is not a continent...
The US, Britain, France, Russia, Sweden and other rich/developed countries have shares in Antarctica
(See “what if Antarctica melted”)
“I teach geography for a living”
1 min later
“Europe is East of Russia”
It is, it's just not the most direct way to get there ;)
^
@@luketeeninga7106 haha, well that make sense
The countries in the European Union are East of Russia you mean
Look in the description lol. Just checked and he mentions it
I will never understand why it is so hard to display New Zealand on a map.
We ,like to keep our country secret
As a chilean, I will never understand why people cuts off the pacific :c
Icespoon Doesn’t fit youtube’s ratio
It doesn’t exist
New Zealand is myth.
It disturbs me that you didn't rescale Greenland when you moved it down.
Most software don't reproject things that are moved on a sphere, because most software don't understand spheres.
And he just copied eastern Kazakhstan
Good I thought it was only me.
he didn't need to it was already scaled properly that's why it's squished
@@oscarnemo8084 bad
Continents starting and ending in "a" :
Europians: "hMmMmMmMmMM"
Oceania boiiii
@@thatotherguy3348 its referred to Australia more than it is Oceania.
Actually Europe is a peninsula like India it's not a continent from geographical sense
@@oldaccount9261 a peninsula of peninsulas of peninsulas...
Aeuropa
The message at 3:37:
"You could argue that Antarctica is also a single region. While this is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 different regions, glacier and mountains."
Thank you
You sir, are a hero. Thank you
Thank you! I hate it when UA-camrs add text for less than a second... 😕
He just shoulda spoken it.
Thank you so much. That was so fucking annoying
The Blinking Text that was at 3:37:
"You could argue that Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is Significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least 2 distinct regions, glaciers and mountains."
Hope that helped.
Thanks
I spent two full minutes trying to read it (and succeeded). But thankyou ;)
But the two 'regions' as defined by biomes, or precipitation and surface cover, are homogenous based on the Atlas Pro's criteria. Ergo, they are one region by his criteria (but also two continents because of the Transantarctic mountains).
Thank you!! I rage quit after multiple tries to pause that notation....then came here to make a comment about Antartica, lol!
Huh.
Shouldn't the same standard be applied to all the landmasses? Why not use mountains to subdivide that Americas and Africa as well?
There aren't really mountains range who divided Africa thought he could have use the sahara who is essentially a flat mountain since it divided the north africans from the subsaharan africans.
Relative to America, the only mountain ranges are the Appalachians, the Rockies and the Andes which if used would only isolate the coast from the Inside of the continent which doesn't really make sense to me. Moreover I think it would be smaller than Greenland just because the space between the coast and those mountains is so thin.
the greenland rule, perhaps.
@@rasho2532 North America, has three large mountian ranges. One along each coast and one closer to the center, the Rockies. I just checked my globe and a split along the Rockies would give two parts larger than Greenland.
@@johnbennett1465 ok then
@@jbird4478 yeah but the west side of the Andes is too thin to be a continent. Though I agree his definition are kinda clunky m
"This keeps the trend of every continent name starting and ending with an A."
Europe : Am i a joke to you?
@@brookevanostrand829 Aindia*
Avrupa 🤔
@@Danilaschannel Avrupa doesn't even mean India in any Indian language. So, where did you get that name from?
@@user-pakshibhithi10 It's the Turkish word for Europe????
@@Danilaschannel Ohhhhh!!!! I thought you were giving a Name for India that starts with 'A' but doesn't sound as bad a 'Aindia', maybe I thought that was the case because of the reply above yours. I just subconsciously thought that way because of that reply which is above yours.
"Kilometers, which are the biggest.."
The almighty yottameter has a bone to pick with you, friend.
is that bigger than gigaparsec?
Whoa, that's a yotta-meters!
who uses that? that thing is freken bigger than a lightyear
@@alveolate What about a *YOTTAPARSEC! DUN DUN DUN*
There may be few people that use the yottameter, but the kilometer is by no means the biggest unit.
We all know Europe is east of Russia.
wss looking for this
yeah i got confused there. he got east and west confused there. haha
YoIronFistBro - Yeah, and “northeast corner” of the largest landmass
@@brentsmelser actually....Scandinavia is the northwest corner (peninsula).
YoIronFistBro If you start in Kamtjatska and travel east over Canada you end up in Europe...
"Try describing the European Union without mentioning a continent."
A union on the European Peninsula
What is European?
@@raunaksinghdhanjal4168 a place where the peninsula is in
What penesula
Lmao yes, and we can still call it Europe since we call the Iberian peninsula Iberia
And the European Peninsula has, like, 6 other peninsulas sticking out of it
I thought it was obvious we've got three continents.
Land, Space, and Atlantis.
Max i thought those were neighborhoods
then you add Lemuria, the Atlantis of the Pacific ocean.
Wakanda?
Formosa!?
Shhh, its supposed to be a secret
Pretty sure Herodotus is more celebrated for history rather than geography, Father of geograohy would be eratosthenes
I came to the comments to see who the first person would be to correct this minor but glaring error...
the amount of times he said that the EU is east of Russia is astonishing
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin No, the EU is west of it.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin I guess, but then I can say the EU is east of everything right? When we say something is east of something else, we usually mean directly east of it.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin Stop talking so condescending, I understood everything is east of everything from the beginning.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin It's okay, I forgive you.
@Sinan Schneider Ozaydin thats not really true. If u go straight east in europe, ull never reach south america. North east south west are set. If you allow any direction in between (say north north west) then yes anything is possible
10:13 it's not the mountains that kept people away, but the harsh climate of Siberia.
Just like the Sahara has historically been a barrier to human expansion to and from sub Saharan Africa.
Very true
The Sahara was much greener >5000 years ago.
we wuz kangz
@@ogolow570 wtf does that mean
@Jon Bjornssen faaam!
I think the "achaemenid" and anarabian continents should be one. They seem kinda too small on their own (especially when you factor in the population) to be continents
Australia: hold my beer.
Yeah
Red Hiding Hood Yeah, middle east would be an appropriate name for it too
What about the population of Antarctica?
@@Fixundfertig1 antarctica is (h)uge
Atlas Pro: “Centimeters, which are the smallest”
Millimeters: *wat*
Planck Length: *ahem*
what about nanometers, micrometers and a lot more
@@pewdiepieisstillabadyoutub4490 *YOu DoN'T mATtEr In thE NorMAL WorLD*
yocto meters
Nano-furlongs:
Well.. I think Oceania and the Caribbean did not like this video :(
He didn't count any islands...like the Canadian Arctic.
Neither did the UK
Neither did Zealandia.
neither did Indonesia
According to rule number 2, wouldn’t the Scandinavian Peninsula be considered a continent, or would this contradict rule number 1?
Let's split up the Eurasia by the mountains that were historically difficult for humans to get past! But also let's just ignore all the other mountains that did the same thing around the world
European history is full of invading armies struggling to cross the Alps, so Italy and Germany should be on two different continents as well.
Cry about it
@@monster_madeline no he makes sense, they made a criteria that he applied to only one continent but not the others when a huge chunk of the other criteria emphasized how we needed to be consistent. If a criteria for a continent include the natural border made by mountain ranges as their limits them north america should also have been divided.
@@christiandavegutierrez475 cry about it
@@micha2909 smaller than Greenland
Atlas pro: The foot, the time-honoured best unit
*Ok, I'm gonna stop you right there*
America FTW lmao (I'm joking please don't take this to mean, I think I'm superior to you)
Notice that he explained all of the units that are almost a foot, and that is why it is the best, not the American foot itself is best just because it is American.
@@chaset2628 the American foot doesn't even exist, it's the English foot.
@@_mako Only Americans use that specific foot so...
Is it the lenin?
In my opinion, Anatolia-Arabia should be called Asia in this division instead, because the earliest usage of the term Asia referred to Anatolia. The Central, North, East and Southeast Asia can have a different name altogether but I don’t have a name in mind yet
How about mongolia
@@oshoarora6337 best comment
I have a feeling Turkey might resent being part of Asia since they keep trying to worm their way into the EU.
@@oshoarora6337 Outer Mongolia is counted as East Asia
@@arthas640 Lol true
11:42 "This keeps the trend of continent names that both begin and end with the letter 'A'"
Oh, like Europe?
"Æurope"
Avrupa
Auropa?
His definition of a 'region' is really weird; he might be getting it confused with biomes. I think most people would classify a region more along human terms rather than geological. Instead of drawing the boundaries based on where the land is roughly the same, you'd want to go by demographic details. I think he focused too much on simplifying the terms and ended up jumbling them up in his head.
Btw, dick move just ignoring the East Indies :/
They're smaller than Greenland (considerably!!), what else do you need to know?? Why bring them up at all?
Because continents are a human construct, especially when we're using them to talk about our own populations. Europe only exists because we as people decided to differentiate it as such. We should use a demographic construct to base our 'scale' on rather that Greenland of all things. He took his own scales analogy a bit too literally.
@@BWOBLACKHEART Agreed, I prefer Massamans continents over these mostly because it's based off of the demography of each region rather than geographical proximity if that makes sense.
There should be separate units for physical regions and human regions, if you really want to make well-defined physical regions. Most people would just prefer to use human regions imo. It's easier for people now to understand someone saying that Iran is in the Middle East versus Iran is in Asia, even though both are true.
He didn't include any island though. (Smaller than Greenland)
Person 1:What countries are in the European Union
Person 2: The countries in Europe
1: So like Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine?
2: No
Most of Balkan as well
@@kurtsteiner7310 UK soon too.
Japan, Indoniesia, Madagascar: Oh look, me and the other islands do not belong to continents! Wait...
✨Philippines🇵🇭✨ too! 👁️👄👁️
We get that Britain was also not mentioned. It's a Brexit thing I guess...
Lol I would already call Indonesia and most of Asian islands a continent, excluding Japan, while Madagascar is historically “aindian”
So we could probably add another coninent called "The remaining"
I tend to divide Asia into these subcontinents:
*East Asia:* The only region I used to associate with Asia growing up, before I knew better. Stretching from China & Mongolia to Japan, and from the Koreas to Taiwan.
*Southeast Asia:* Indochina and the Malay archipelagos. I sometimes lumped this one together with the rest of East Asia, mostly because of the similarities in phenotypes.
*Indian Subcontinent:* India and the countries which it borders
*Central Asia:* All the -stan countries minus Pakistan. I was barely aware of this region until a few years back when I realized how distinct they were from their neighbors in the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent.
*Middle East:* The Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Mesopotamian region, the Caucasus, Anatolia, + Egypt and Iran, though I now realize that Iran has more connections to Afghanistan. Which makes sense when you consider the fact that the two are part of Greater Iran
Edit: forgot about *North Asia* or Russian Siberia
thats demograpics and politics ... not physical geography
So why would Egypt be part of the "middle east" but not Libya for example?
Afghanistan is not part of Central Asia... And Egypt is not part of ME
@@ThisAlias Afghanistan is definitely at least half Central Asian. "Middle East" is a political classification and usually it includes Egypt (look at wikipedia).
4Abiddin3-[T.C.] Yes Egypt is in the Middle East.
3:45
You just used the satellite map of Eastern Kazakhstan/Southern Russia for a prosperous Greenland in the Atlantic. 😂
Even the latitudes r wrong lol 😂😂😂😂
And? It's not like it lowers the video quality, and this video would've also taken longer to produce. You're just being idiotic.
@@lettuce9466 Why does that matter? Climate can be very similar at totally different latitudes. For example, Greenland and Antarctica have incredibly similar climates, yet are on completely opposite latitudes.
@@jbird4478 Precisely.
Why It? I entitled this as a joke, as I noticed it
Continent: A large landmass defined by Geography alone
Sub-continent: A large region within a continent that is defined by a mix of Culture and Geography.
I prefer this, from what I actually saw. Or best, just leave things as they are.
I think the divisions he made in the last part of the video are what we should perhaps call "sub-continents", and then just leave Eurasia as the actual "continent". But there is still the issue that someone mentioned above which relates to applying that rule for sub-continents to the other continents, especially North and South America which have significant mountain ranges that create those same natural divides. This suggests that both North and South America should contain sub-continents, when there are areas separated by mountains and those areas are also larger than Greenland. Perhaps that may only apply to North America, because the land area west of the Andes is actually quite small and I'm don't think it would be larger than Greenland.
I think it is larger than greenland
By that logic there would be millions of continents including Afro-Eurasia, Madagascar, and a random rock in the middle of the ocean. That's only shifting the confusion from the word "continent" to the word "large."
@@benjidavidoff3784 Maybe put bathymetry in there as well? If waters between continents are shallow enough to have been connected during past glacial periods, then they are part of that continent.
I prefer the seperation of Asia and Europe geographically but I think using your same criteria Italy and Iberia become continents don't they?
If the resulting continent is smaller than Greenland, it's not a continent and is not to be seperated.
@@niku.. Italy plus Balkans is large enough. A line stretching the combined length of the Alps and Carpathians would make more sense than the Urals if looking at history before about 500 CE.
i think it makes more sense to divide them up based on major mountain ranges
Only if you forget about the other criteria for his proposed continent suggestions.
they would be smaller then Greenland
Oxford dictionary definition of Continents: *_exists_*
Atlas Pro: *hold my beer*
The OED? What kind of peasant do you think Atlas Pro is? He clearly uses the superior Merriam-Webster
I can't believe Atlas never mentioned the concept of tectonic plate boundaries in this video. I think Europe and Asia are separate because of their diversity, not their separation due to landforms.
It's geography that caused those cultural distinction though.
@@asterozoan The long distance between Mediterranean empires and Chinese empires, and the vast, empty land in the middle being comparably way less hospitable, makes cultural cross-pollination almost impossible for early empires. The only geographical factor keeping these cultures distant isn't due to 2 continents, but being on the opposite sides of a massive continent. The trade route from Middle East to China is so difficult to travel that it is mostly used by local nomadic tribes, and Europeans preferred sailing around the African continent to get to Asia.
kilometer biggest? centimeter smallest? bruh that's not how the metric system works
SirMrBerk americans...
@@aditiparmar6097 demjokes
How many times do you use the gigameter or the nanometer? Unless you’re a scientist, you don’t use this. Same with the imperial system. No one uses chains or furlongs. For the average person, centimeter is smallest and kilometer is biggest
@@mattbarrett3618
What about milimetres? Those are very common.
@@mattbarrett3618 i can accept kilometer as the bigget usual unit, but you don't have to be a scientist to use milimeters frequently...
11:45: All Continents had "a" as first and last letter
Europe: I'm joke to you?
Europa
Aurora
I meant tot sau auropa
Too say
Aeuropea
Theoretically, I think you could also split the islands of Indonesia by the Wallace line and incorporate those sides into either Asia or Australia. Just my personal thinking
8:20 "...everyone knows how big a foot is"
Kids with no legs : *am i a joke to you?*
@mjolnir, but pronounced Jonathan how about blind kids with no legs ?
@mjolnir, but pronounced Jonathan what about blind kids with no hands, no leg, and no ears?
@mjolnir, but pronounced Jonathan ey, at least it's fun
I have to wonder what's wrong with the term "subcontinent" to describe major subsections of the larger continents. It's been in use for ages to describe South Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent). Europe is really a subcontinent of Eurasia. Both regions are not just defined by mountain ranges but by culture and historical ties. Eurasia could be broken into quite a few logical subcontinents. Africa could be broken into at least two (North Africa and Subsaharan Africa). I'm not sure if the concept of subcontinents could easily be imported into the Americas. Perhaps in a cultural sense in North America (Latin America versus the US/Canada) but that's almost exclusively cultural whereas the Old World examples were cultural groups divided by a geography.
Also, why not consider tectonic plates in the description of continent if you aren't factoring in culture? They provide one of the best logical reasons to consider North and South America to be separate continents... because a few million years ago, they literally were until the collided.
I generally agree with the subcontinents thing, but my gripe with the tectonic plates is, if you really follow them, they'll make North America subsume a huge chunk of Siberia, which makes little intuitive sense.
In Latin America, we called the Americas a single continent (America), with North and South America as its two subcontinents.
India is a subcontinent because it's on its own Continent plate. Europe is not because it shares the same plate as Asia
i think clumping up middle east together would make more sense than having basicaly iran as its own continent
I think it fully fits as it's own continent if you look at the history of the area. Much different than arabia.
He couldn't, while he invented this mountain range division of continents, he had to apply it everywhere it fit.
@@maczetamaczeta189 But didn't apply it to the parts of America split by mountains? Most specifically the sierra nevada mountain range, which stretches all the way up into British Columbia in Canada which separate the coast from the rest of the land.
@@RedChaosScrungle yea, but the mountains in the Americas haven’t caused any real deterrence to settlement
@@JustANervousWreck Actually, if you look at a map of the first settlers of America, you'll see the Sierra Nevada mountains almost perfectly lining the western border for the indigenous great basin peoples, they don't live on the other side of the mountains, just cause it's all the same country in 'Murica, doesn't mean it's not a divide, though if I'm wrong please correct me.
This is basically a video explaining why Europe is its own continent
Also 2 inland seas and 5 major peninsula is pretty distinctive part of Eurasia. Significant for the anthropology.
no, it's a flawed try on "scientifically" defining a continent"
It's a failed (to me) attempt at convincing people Europe should be a continent.
I'm at least glad he made India its own continent. Those who argue it shouldn't, but Europe should, are.... well... just wrong.
@@Jam77229 oh i see. You sure explained your point very well as to why they're wrong and why you're the one in the right. Truly exemplary arugumentation.
@Dieter Gaudlitz it's about how different the culture is from Europe to Asia, while people from the other continents share some similarities, Europeans and Asians have nothing in common
I'm a bit confused on your definition of a "region"
part of a landmass that has similar animal and plantlife, temperature, sea level and overall look (example: desert, tropical rainforest)
@@PapaKlimentino but Antarctica is 1 region
@@paranoidise6458 According to Atlas Pro not. See 3:36
@RandomPangolin We're talking about geographic regions though, which don't give a crap about people
Basically a biome
3:36
"You could aruge that Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Transantarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 distinct regions, glacier and mountains."
Thank me later.
Matthew Lau thank you very much
I thought this comment was talking about something else, so I still tried to pause the video.
I'm not even mad at my stupidity.
so south america should be divided in two due to the Andes
Thanks
1. 1:28 East of Russia?
You sure bout that?
2. 3:35 You could aruge? That Antarctica is also a single region. While that is a fair argument to make, I'd counter by saying Antarctica is significantly broken up by the Trans-Antarctic mountain range and at the very least create 2 distinct regions, glacier and mountains. (For those who couldn't catch it)
All jokes aside though, this channel is incredible. Watched through the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed it :)
Its for sure west
@Adymn Sani 😅
It is east because the world is round
Well considering the Earth is a globe...
@@Omar_ayach West would fit better but fair enough. Well said.
3:52 "The next biggest landmass after Greenland is Australia"
Greenland : 2.17 million km2
Australia : 7.69 million km2
He probably meant to say that Australia was the next landmass up in size after Greenland.
...also Mercator is a bitch
@@hernandostefanamisola8043 in many European countries the decimal point is , and the comma every 3 digits is . Doesn't make it any less confusing tho 😅
@@infernalstan886 honestly, if we give the US shit for not officially adopting metric, we should give those EU nations reversing comma and period shit too.
@@hernandostefanamisola8043 I'm French, we use coma for decimals 🤷♂️
You needed 13 minutes to explain "Let everything be as it already is, but devide Asia into 4 pieces."
You have imperialised the continent system, but ended up with a nice metric result.
Well thought, I have a suggestion. As the Alpes somewhat "divide" Europe, can we argue that Anarbia and Achaemia could co-exist?
You can definitely make a arguement that they should but his criteria still isn't broken by the Alps or the Pyrenees since Iberian and Italian Peninsulas are both smaller than Greenland.
I agree. I think that they should create a continent called, say, “Alshrqia” or “Alscerca” from the Arabic alshrq
@@ianfrye6775 I agree. Totally better than the Frankenstein of a word "Anarabia"
I know it doesn't start/end with a, but how about we just make "the middle East" a continent.
Only India and China are more populated than 5 continent's.
Edited - 6, I forget Antarctica.
So you basically invented the concept of subcontinent ?? Whoah.
@Finn MickCool By the video's logic, we could call (A)India, (An)Arabia, (Aecheamenid)Iran, AND (no A?)Europe "subcontinents". Which I'd be OK with, really.
You might as well have kept going by your definition. East africa seperates from the rest of Africa from the ethiopian highlands and the great rift. North america can be split 4 ways. Everything East of the appalachian mountains, everything west of the Rocky Mountains, everything south of the sierra nevada. Leaving everything between the rockies and appalachians from the gulf of mexico to the arctic as one continent. South america can stay whole or chile ecuador and peru might be seperate. I love your videos but this was bad in so many ways.
I thought that it was quite fine. The mountain requirement was only there to split up Eurasia.
It's more about the historical impact of the mountain ranges on the movement of peoples. With the Andes, the only example would be the Inca, but they actually lived on both sides of the Andes and were limited more by their distance to the coast than the mountains.
For the Appalachians and Rockies, there were never any expanding empires in north America until the American frontier, which was certainly not stopped by the mountains.
Indeed, i don't think we should split the continents based on how many humans live there. Afro Eurasia is the biggest and that's a fact.
yeah this was awful. The definition of words come from common agreement. He had a similar video on the Caspian sea which was just as moronic. Ugh he has some really good content but every 4th video or so is a giant miss.
Asc saaxiib. He should split east Africa as well because of the distinctive people there, and at 11:44 he has three mistakes
1. Arabia is spelled anarbia
2. He is missing Europe
3. Another continent is missing, therefore there aren't the ten he originally stated
"Centimeter, which is the smallest." *Angry millimeter noises.*
Angry Attometer noises!
This is silly. If you're willing to make arbitrary decisions purely out of convenience and not any kind of objective physical reason, then embrace it. Just make the continents themselves that arbitrary decision and leave it at that. There's no need for any of these ridiculous post-hoc rationalizations that serve no other purpose than essentially just to arrive at the arbitrary decision that you want. Continents are like countries- they're just convenient social constructions humans agree to use simply because it makes some things easier. This obsession of trying to make everything have to be based on consistent rules with a physical basis is pointless.
hear hear
It's not any more pointless than theoretical physicists coming up with theories that fit their preconceived notions of how the universe should work. Actually, those people are kind of pointless... We need new ideas based on the real world! I think AP is going about this the right way, but his mountain range rule has somewhat to be desired. That or it would need to be expanded. I actually think that the eurasian continent makes sense, but we may need to invent a new word for the descriptions that are smaller than a continent and larger than a single region, tho, thinking about regions, they basically already cover the larger bits of land people often reference.
@@kindlin So, a subcontinent?
The meter was arbitrarily chosen from a not so arbitrary number: the distance from the pole to the equator. The number 10 million is arbitrary. The same principle applies here backwards. Arbitrary rules, not arbitrary lines
0:47 are you familiar with milimeters?
There is also micrometers, nanometer and attometers.
Dummies, y'all forgot Yoctometers.
Slight adjustments -
1. Include Japan, S.Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei with Oceania.
2. Include Ireland, Uk Iceland and other European islands with Europe and include other islands with their respective continents.
3. Merge Achaesia with Arabia.
4. Combine Aindia with Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam.
Even though arbitrary definitions can be understood, all you have done is divide Asia into 4 parts and give borders to the continents. Why divide only Asia into parts? Aren’t there mountain ranges in South America and North America? Don’t deserts also act as boundaries to human expansion?
Agree. Too much elements of _divide and conquer_ at work. Definition of continent shouldn’t be utilized to manipulate human population.
Children of Atum
EXACTLY!👍👍👍
He explined why he only divided Eurasia. Because Eurasia is fucking big and populous so he created these more comfortable names to use in everyday language. What comes to your mind when you think of Africa? Pretty solid picture. Now imagine a single picture of Eurasia. East Asia's architecture, India's populous streets, Russia's vast Siberia, the Arabic world and Europe. That's too many. That's why he divided Eurasia. Officially there would still only be Eurasia, but in the everyday language you'd use Europe, Asia, Aindia, Achaemia and Anarbia.
Although my personal opinion would be to merge Anarbia and Achaemia
What you are calling "continents" inside Eurasia (a real continent) are subcontinents, or regions. What you are calling "regions" are biomes. There's no problem in having a giant continent like Eurasia, because It's just reality.
Also, continents should be defined by their continental shelf. Greenland is inside North Americas shelf, the British isles, Japan, Sri Lanka, Sumatra, Borneo and Java are in Eurasias shelf, and so on. That's why Greenland isn't a continent.
Filipe Felício but if you wanna do the whole continental shelf thing, how would you classify Australia and New Zealand
@@dacadz I am aware of the situation in east Siberia, but remember the CONTIGUOUS part of the definition of a continent. The North American Continent stops at the Bering Strait, at least today. If it were the last glacial maximum, North America would end not far as well, somewhere in Beringia, which would be the thinnest point of the Landmass to be one single Biome/Region.
Iceland is outside the main North American continental shelf. It is an island between Eurasia and North America.
Japan is split between the Amur and Okhotsk plates, no part of Japan would be considered North America. Furthermore, Japan is a continuation of the Eurasian Continental Shelf, so it is more closely tied to Eurasia.
I'm not exactly sure where I would draw the line exactly, but somewhere in the south-west United States or in Mexico, there should be a divide, with the northern side being North America and the southern side being Central America. These two regions have been completely different for millennia, so grouping them as one and the same doesn't make sense.
The rule about continents being divided by mountains only seems to apply to Eurasia, which doesn't make sense, when the Rockies and Andes mountains exist.
Also by the region argument, Antarctica is actually far less diverse in it's regions than Greenland. If having multiple regions on a continent is a prerequisite, then Antarctica does not qualify. Since it doesn't qualify, we have to exclude anything smaller than it, so sorry Australia, Europe, Aindia, Anarabia, and Achaemia.
Yes the Rockies and the Andes Mountains exist and are rather large mountains but they don't completely cut off an area from the rest on the world(like the himalias and the caucuses), they just stop in the middle of there respective continents.
Also the United States and Canada have not been "compleatly different for melenia" from Central America and Mexico, the indegeounous people(who have lived there for melenia) dont just sudenly become "compleatly different" on this magical line.
@@jacobgorokhovsky4677 they do cut off.
The Andes extends from Northern venezuela to the bottom of south america
For me i am also against considering achemania and anarabia two different continents... Because actually they were heavly related to each other for mellinia.
However, I agree that China and Saudi arabia should not be at the same continent. They were not ever in one empire, even the mongols were not able to do that 😅
Yes but the American mountains divide the primary landmass along one of the widest parts, not creating as distinguishing separations, whereas the Eurasia divisions seem to. The main separating feature of the land masses into continents being bodies of water, the Ural divides seem to make a degree of sense since it divides with the geographically notable bodies of water. Not sure I agree with being completely separate continent, but for subcontinent it makes more sense than the americas. I think the American ranges are more useful for regional separation rather than landmass separation.
3:37
1:43 "...this keeps the trend of continents that both begin and end with the letter A"
Europe: Am I a joke to you?
11:43
The problem I have with the Achaemenid continent is that no one empire has been able to conquer an entire continent. The Persians just had mountains as their shield to the outside world. Same with Italy.
Really no one has conquered an entire continent? What about Australia?
The Iberian Union controlled all of South America.
"Everyone knows how big a foot is" I guess that's why we only have one shoe size huh?
Precisely. Foots are so inconsistent that every country he mentioned came up with different results. I'll stick with what I'm using right now, thank you. I can also say meter is intuitive, because it's half of the tall human.
I did never understand the foot mesure, it is not consistent and is not 10 based, that's why meters are perfect
But metric-users use the meter like a foot. We also have a decimeter (1/10*m) but we use the Meter for comparison and imagining things on human scale.
Metres are good for human scale stuff. Easy to pace out. The prefix cluster around unity is largely useless. About the only time any of its members get used is for centimetres and hectares.
People living on islands: *anger*
It’s much smaller than a landmass
sorry but we don't talk about islands here
9:36 why are the mountain ranges in turkey cut in that way? According to this video, Turkey would be in three continents.
What's wrong with that? Lots of countries are already transcontinental.
Ed Jones nothing wrong with that, maybe further refinement in that area could simplify things.
@@FehimKorkmaz Fair enough I guess.
Here are my thoughts to get all As :
Æuropa (Europe)
Africa (Africa)
Asia (Eastern Asia)
Archæsia (your Achemia, your Anarabia + Caucasus all in one)
Abharata (India)
Amazonia (South America)
Anahuaca (North America)
Australia (Oceania)
Arctica (Greenland)
Antarctica (Penguinia)
Æ is not A its it own letter and its not in English but café will disagree
@@Arranus we write and call Europe as "Avrupa" anyways so no need to try hard for me 😎 (by the way i am European)
@@fallendown8828 You maybe a Russian or from some other Slavic country.
@@user-pakshibhithi10 close, i am from Thrace and i am a Bulgarian muhacir which basically means muslim who came back to Turkey after loss of territories in Caucasus and Balkans
@@fallendown8828 Ok, so, do Bulgarians identify as Slavs or something else?
When he does this:
Me: Yay!
When half of the countries of Asia become transcontinental
Me: Oh no!!!!!
What
@@Shadowaucifer half of the Asian counties, like Pakistan for example, are now split between two continents. Like how Russia is in both Europe and Asia.
Turkey is in three continents according to this video. 😬
@@micha2909 oh f🤬
@@micha2909 the UK currently has territory in 7 continents so
If we are looking at major mountain ranges then if you look at it then North America would be split in two by the rockies
It’d actually be split further as really there are many mountain ranges that run alongside the Rockies and have land masses in-between them, or, in the case of the west coast, a landmass between mountains and ocean.
Though he said it’d have to be larger than Greenland so there isn’t a west coast continent.
that makes sense but you have to remember that it's not just any mountains it has to be prominent.
@@danielduvernay3207 Most of these mountains are taller than the Urals (The Urals are really comparable to the Appalachians. The Appalachians are slightly higher, but shorter.)
I also forgot to mention that Alaska may as well be its own continent.
@@john3_14-17 the Ural Mountains are way shorter than the Appalachians.
@@typhonsentra In terms of length the range is 100 miles longer. In terms of height they don't seem to dissimilar either. You need to be more specific.
1:21 you mixed up east and west twice in a row
Nocturne 6:28 aswell
I totally relate with him though. The terms east and west are so annoying and just make using and understanding left and right so much harder.
East? I thought you said Weast.
not so easy, indeed 😂
I have defined political continents. I had draw a graph of countries and their geographical connections. Then I use automatic clusterisation tools, and found they are clustered in 8 continents. Africa became two continents, Europe lost Iberian peninsula to North Africa, Middle East was a separate continent, and Indonesia went to Australia+Oceania (I've used EEZ borders as a reference).
Is this geography fan fiction?
More like a wet-dream of _divide and conquer_ elites.
I really like the ten continent way. I think it's very understandable and in a very cultural way.
Aaah the Metric system... pure perfection. 10mm = 1cm. 100cm = 1m. 1000m = 1km etc. Fit together like a puzzle. Inch, Foot, Yard, ... make no sense together
If you want another topic to cover: what are islands? Why is America not the biggest island or afroeurasia and how can Australia can count as both?
Geography Now: Finally a good competitor
Greenland is not all glaciers, it also has mountains, fjords, tundra, grasslands and woodland.
But it’s not bigger than Greenland
@@teathesilkwing7616 What are you talking about?
James Duarte Greenland is not bigger than itself, so it can’t be a continent
@@teathesilkwing7616 well greenland has more climates then antarctica which would mean antarctica isn't a continent also meaning australia isn't either
@@BackToBackJames that's why he defined it as "bigger than greenland" and not "having multiple regions"
When you highlight Antarctica at 4:27 you highlight all the ice in addition to all the land but your definition refers to landmasses so... I am now unreasonably angry about a tiny thing
News: the subcontinent of "India" has been studied, redefined and it unanimously agreed to be renamed "Aintindia"
Indians: loses their minds
Pakistani: ROFL
Let's call the first unit continent, and the second one a sub continent- like the Indian sub-continent. I think it would work well enough
India, to me, should not be a subcontinent. Europe deserves to be a subcontinent of Eurasia.
@@hanggaraaryagunarencagutuh7072 they both are
@@nmvhr India cannot be a subcontinent because it's geologically different despite geographically merging with Iranic and Turkic countries and Sinospheric-cultured areas.
@@hanggaraaryagunarencagutuh7072 you have brain disease. culture does not make a continent or a subcontinent.
@@hanggaraaryagunarencagutuh7072 and Europe can because...?
This man can edit a video a week? With this quality?
12:00 People from Pakistan and Bengladesh would be Indian if the partition didn't happen though.
It's a little late for that though...
Geoffe Koedel not really. Takes time that’s all
@@PikaPluff To cram two culturally distinct enemy nuclear states into one? Takes more time than we have, that's for sure.
@@blueveins3238 culturally distinct???
@@sadaypratyush5191 Of course Pakistan and India are culturally distinct. Pakistan is an Islamist theocracy while India is a majority-Hindu secular state. Pakistan speaks Urdu and India speaks Urdu. It's also widely accepted that clan identity is more common in Pakistan due to a weaker nation state.
It's not a stark contrast like say, China and Russia, but it doesn't have to be. It's very hard to get people past their petty power struggles even with negligible cultural differences; otherwise, the US and Canada would have united decades or centuries ago. Pakistan and India are the king and queen of petty squabbling, which further compounds the problem.
I think the line separating Achaemenia from the rest of Asia should be along the Karakorum and Tien Shan Mountains, basically including the rest of the stans.
You forgot about impenetrable deserts, which divide continents just like mountain ranges. Technically speaking Africa and North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt etc.) are completely different continent separated by the Sahara desert. North Africa might be considered part of Anarabia as well, but it is a bit tricky, because it is also significantly influenced by Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Italy/ancient Rome, Spain etc.).
You could also have the mountain range of China, which divides West and East China.
Note that East China contains 94% of its population so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to use it, and it would divide the Typical asian stereotype (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) from the nomadic tribes of Central Asia and West China
who else rewatched the same scene around 3:37 to finally catch what the written text said?
Wouldn't Antarctica become a region by your definition?
@Gryfon so does Greenland
I think it would've been better to put "Anarabia" and "Achaemenia" together to just call it "Middle east".
Isn't Herodotus mostly known for being the father of history?
I'm an idiot he's known as both Father of Geography and History
OR! we keep using what we are currently using because it works?
Fat
It doesn’t really work for me
Can we really argue that a system that separates Europe from India but not India from China is functional though? Because the differences are pretty on-par.
i mean, continents are just mostly informal labels for landmasses, alongside the oceans which are also rather arbitrary. from a holistic point of view, continents + oceans = 100% of earth's surface. that's really all it is...
if you wanna go more detailed, continents and oceans are never precise enough. but if you were an alien trying to figure out which quadrant of the planet you're at, the ocean/continent labels give you a rough guide. for politics and human geog, you simply gotta zoom in to national borders, regional groupings, demographic distribution, etc.
for phy geog, it's always been continental shelves and plate tectonics, no? which is why india is a sub-continent and there is debate about whether zealandia could be considered a continent. so "continents" are just the names given to segments of the earth's crust delineated by major fault lines, right?
The point is that it doesnt work. Some people say there's 7, some people say there's 6 or even 3.
atlas pro: there are 10 continents
zealandia: am i a joke to you?
Wouldn't you have to divide North America then as well? Because of the Rockys and Appalachians
And South America with the Andes
@@Prettywhite4awhiteguy exactly, and forget about Europe. Would the Iberian peninsula be not part of Europe because of the Pyrenees?
That East-West dyslexia
- Teaching geography on UA-cam.
- Calling Australia the _next biggest_ landmass _after_ Greenland.
Choose one.
And then saying the EU is east of Russia
I really like this way of doing things, specifically the part with the mountains, but instead of Aindia i'd call it Andia
I disliked the idea of adding a letter for aesthetic reasons, so i thought it's name could be "the Indic continent" or Sindhia, since the name India stems from "Sindh" as far as i know...
Andia would probably be confused with Andea and vice versa
i think we should merge 'anarabia" and "achaemedia" and just make it the middle east(or maybe find another name for it)
I know, we could just call it "Middle Earth"! Wait, no, that's already taken 🤗
I’m not sure the population there would like that
Amiddleeasta? Keeping with the 'A' fetish he has in this video?
At the least, you can just combine Achaemia and Anarbia together to form the Middle East.
For the most part, you basically just recreated all the continents we have already established with extra smaller continents but I'd be fine with Aindia and/or the Middle East being established as separate continents.
I would call those enclosed smaller areas subcontinents.
We should call europe a subcontinent tbh.
@@patrikrathousky5791 true North america and South america are subcontinents
I think the Greater Iran region is sometimes called "Ariana"
Grand Ariana
Ariana Grande*
I would still say that continents should contain nearby islands with a central landmass. Oceania could be a continent, including Zealandia, Papua New Guinea, and Polynesia and Micronesia. South America could take half the Caribbean, North America the northern half and Greenland, and Europe (or whatever Axxxa name it takes under this new system) could still have the northern Mediterranean, the British Isles, and Iceland.
*The Mercator projection triggers me*
It's not mercator. Look at Greenland.
@@kesorangutan6170 yeah but africa and russia are still too small. You're right though it's not the Mercator
@@noorullahbaig5350
It looks like it's an Equirectangular Projection:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection
Noorullah Baig africa is the correct size&shape, for the most part. greenland and russia however is distorted. but still, better then mercator
Why do you ignore the geological definition of a continent? That is a real, concrete definition of continents which coordinates roughly to our human concept of the term
There's a number of spots where the plates just don't play nicely with the landmasses. For example, the tectonic boundary or North America and Asia cuts through Siberia while the Bering Strait is just a low spot that happens to dip under sea level.
EDIT: I put the below argument in a little video of my own: ua-cam.com/video/98rjgVzLdXE/v-deo.html
Now, first of all, by any measure Greenland and Antarctica are the same except size. Greenland has significant mountains as well, therefor having two of your regions. Second, 10 being a nice number is arbitrary as our number base is. Was 6 for a long time as evident by clock numbers. Third, I wholly disagree with the Urals being any measure of geographic division, as they are just too small for bigger divisions than a region.
By my measure, actually no mountain should divide. They are large to humans, but on a continental scale, mountains are actually quite flat. Also most places have mountain-ranges and it feels un-useful to divide South America along the Andes.
My definition would be simple:
1. Landmass of at least 1 Million km², fully divided from other Landmasses by navigable waters, whereby these waters must be at least 1km wide for at least 90% of the circumference.
This would lead to the Contintents of (descending in size):
1. Asia, including northern Caucasus.
2. Afrika (seperate continent since existence of Suez canal)
3. North America
4. South America (seperated since Panama Canal)
5. Antarctica
6. Australia
7. Europe, ending at the Volga River, not including Fennoscandia (Volga-Baltic-Canal & Volga-Don-Canal create full enclosure by water, the massive width of the Volga ensures the 90% rule.)
8. Greenland (almost 3 times as large as the next largest island, it deserves this.)
9. Fennoscandia: The Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland, Karelia and Kola. (water enclosure by the white-sea-baltic-canal)
There we go, simple rule, no exceptions, 9 continents that are useful terms for the scale and no continental border over land. It creates several new intercontinental cities though, joining Istanbul would be St. Petersburg and Rostov.
1:16 easy
British Isles (just Ireland after stupid brexit)
Major 2 Iberian states
France
Benelux
Germany
Italy
Slovenia
Croatia
The 4 countries at the heart of Europe
Poland
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Malta
Cyprus
Scandinavia except Norway