The map above shows in gray, the landmass that is considered to be Europe. How can you get a different definition of what landmass the European continent covers?
Alternate Geographic Definitions of Europe
- Thread starter Hvalrossen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- europe
The map above shows in gray, the landmass that is considered to be Europe. How can you get a different definition of what landmass the European continent covers?
Perhaps any of these borders could make for alternate borders for the European continent?
It's pretty easy to abolish the idea of "Europe" as anything but a geographical concept. Britain and northern France along with Germany and the rest of Northern Europe follow a different religion than Southern Europe. This could be Arian Christianity (perhaps most likely by Late Antiquity), some sort of reformed paganism, or whatever. Southern Europe--and the Near East, and North Africa--follows Nicene Christianity. Everything west of Cyrenaica in North Africa speaks a Romance language, at least as the prestige language. Cyrenaica, Egypt, and the Near East have significant Greek enclaves and Greek is the prestige language.
Therefore, a man from Tangier and a man from Rome would have far more in common than either do with a man from Frankfurt or a man from London. And IMO it's pretty likely that the Mediterranean world and the Northern European world would remain much more distinct than OTL, where the Mediterranean world was divided into Christian and Muslim halves and the Christian half ended up much more similar to the Northern European world.
Therefore, a man from Tangier and a man from Rome would have far more in common than either do with a man from Frankfurt or a man from London. And IMO it's pretty likely that the Mediterranean world and the Northern European world would remain much more distinct than OTL, where the Mediterranean world was divided into Christian and Muslim halves and the Christian half ended up much more similar to the Northern European world.
Napoleonrules
Banned
One could say that easily about any continent other than Australia and Antarctica. Asia doesn't have anything near to a universal culture, racial group, linguistic family, or religion; Africa is as diverse, North America is quite different from Panama to Canada in language and culture, with Anglo to the north and Hispanic to the south, with the Caribbean islands even more diverse, even South America has Portuguese/Spanish divide. Out of all the continents Europe is the LEAST geographically defined as such, being nothing more than a peninsula of Asia.
The most plausible alternate delineation is not to have a distinct "Europe" as a concept at all. After all, "South East Asia" could just as easily be considered a separate continent instead of a part of Asia, and so Europe, too, could just be considered a part of Eurasia.
Until the last third of the 1st millennium CE, the next best alternative delineation would be lumping the European, African, and Asian regions of the Mediterranean together, while what we consider "Northern Europe" would be in a bag with the steppe and the cold forest zone and the tundra zone of all of Eurasia (most of which wouldn't be known to anyone even considering such a debate).
Red or orange would only be plausible at a later point in time, e.g. if the Kievan Rus adopted Islam, or if the Mongols had erected durable Tengrist or Buddhist empires there.
The two green ones all hark back to an alt-Russia taking a more radically distant attitude and policy from the rest of Europe.
Until the last third of the 1st millennium CE, the next best alternative delineation would be lumping the European, African, and Asian regions of the Mediterranean together, while what we consider "Northern Europe" would be in a bag with the steppe and the cold forest zone and the tundra zone of all of Eurasia (most of which wouldn't be known to anyone even considering such a debate).
Red or orange would only be plausible at a later point in time, e.g. if the Kievan Rus adopted Islam, or if the Mongols had erected durable Tengrist or Buddhist empires there.
The two green ones all hark back to an alt-Russia taking a more radically distant attitude and policy from the rest of Europe.
What about a line through the Iranian highlands from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf?
This would put all of the Middle East/Southwest Asia in alt-European continent. This divide could be more relevant in a "no islam" scenario where a surviving Byzantine empire controls evything south to Sinai and East to Mesopotamis. A permanent power vacuum on the Iranian plateau could make it a good dividing line between the Byzantine sphere and the Indian sphere.
But we wouldn't call this continent "Europe", would we, since it contains what the ancoent Greeks referred to as "Asia".
This would put all of the Middle East/Southwest Asia in alt-European continent. This divide could be more relevant in a "no islam" scenario where a surviving Byzantine empire controls evything south to Sinai and East to Mesopotamis. A permanent power vacuum on the Iranian plateau could make it a good dividing line between the Byzantine sphere and the Indian sphere.
But we wouldn't call this continent "Europe", would we, since it contains what the ancoent Greeks referred to as "Asia".
The traditional Hellene division of the world has Asia bound by the Nile and the Phasis (the Georgian Rioni) rivers, with Europe separate from Africa by the Med and Black Seas.
As knowledge of the world grew the Nile boundary was shifted to the Red Sea, and the Urals added as Europe's eastern boundary.
As knowledge of the world grew the Nile boundary was shifted to the Red Sea, and the Urals added as Europe's eastern boundary.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Actually from the Hellenistic period until 1725 the Don River was the dividing line, not the Urals. It is starting with 1725 that the Urals and Volga River are used. It wasn't until 1850/60s that the "normal" convention we have today was accepted, it was very much a controversy before then.
Wasn't the Don one of the alternatives to the Rioni as being the Phasis mentioned by the Hellenes? Would then make sense that would shift east to the Volga and Caspian.
Part of the problem is that there's no convenient single northish to southish river as one heads east. Where the Caucasus and Ural Mountain ranges are rather convenient being north and east of Anatolia.
Absolutely. I think the closest we come is calling it a peninsula, which is slightly inaccurate.
I've always thought "Europe" could be seen as a much as a subcontinent of Eurasia as is the Indian Subcontinent. The continental border of Europe are much more cultural-political than anything geographic.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Except that India is a subcontinent thanks to being a completely different continental plate than Asia and Europe isn't. If we call anything with a different culture a "subcontinent" then let's do Middle East and South-East Asia too.
No English dictionary that I can find - whether it's Dictionary.com or Collinsdictionary.com or Merriam-Webster - says anything about a continental plate being a necessity to be a subcontinent. All just say that a subcontinent is part of a larger continent.
To add to that the development of culture on the subcontinent developed as independently from its eastern continental neighbors as did the Europeans from the Asians.
Geographically all of Eurasia is one large super-continent. The divisions from within are political-cultural not geographical.