Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Continents: A History
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2022
- If you’re from the United States, it’s likely you were taught that there are seven continents on the Earth. In some other parts of the world, however, there is a six continent model, alternatively combining Europe and Asia into Eurasia, or North and South America into the single continent “America." Putting aside geological definitions, the term ‘continent’ has an ancient history, and its definitions have impacted global politics, science, and education for centuries, and its modern understanding did not fully coalesce until very recently.
Support The History Guy on Patreon: / thehistoryguy
This is original content based on research by The History Guy. Images in the Public Domain are carefully selected and provide illustration. As very few images of the actual event are available in the Public Domain, images of similar objects and events are used for illustration.
You can purchase the bow tie worn in this episode at The Tie Bar:
www.thetiebar....
All events are portrayed in historical context and for educational purposes. No images or content are primarily intended to shock and disgust. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Non censuram.
Support The History Guy on Patreon: / thehistoryguy
Facebook: / thehistoryguyyt
Please send suggestions for future episodes: Suggestions@TheHistoryGuy.net
The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered is the place to find short snippets of forgotten history from five to fifteen minutes long. If you like history too, this is the channel for you.
Subscribe for more forgotten history: / @thehistoryguychannel .
Awesome The History Guy merchandise is available at:
thehistoryguy-...
Script by JCG
#history #thehistoryguy #Geography
Suggest now an episode on the "Seven Seas." Pirates would love it.
#WhaleGold
arrgh ye scurvy son of a biscuit eater!
Totally agree!
Yes!
All good stories involve pirates!!
Got my vote !
I can't speak to other continental controversies, but I'd argue that North and South America should most definitely be considered separate continents, wherever one wants to draw the dividing line. The two are quite different in their land, flora, fauna, native peoples, and European immigrants. At least, that was my perception when I visited South America--it felt wonderfully distinct and alien from everything I was accustomed to living in North America.
Everything was different before humans. Migrations and fauna are a good way to separate continents. But that standard Madagascar would be its own content. It's a tricky situation to be sure.
Geologically the two are also quite distinct, having only coincidentally had a small land bridge form between them. For much of the time between now and when the Americas were part of Pangea, they have been substantially further apart.
Physically, I would divide them at the narrowest point in the isthmus of Panama. Culturally, it would be the boundary between USA and Mexico.
This is similar to the situation with Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which technically are two large bays of the same lake.
Hello, there are also arguments to consider America a single continent: A continent is considered to be a large extension of land that differs from other smaller or submerged ones due to a) geographical concepts: such as the oceans [there is no ocean between North & South America]; b) cultural: such as ethnography [Americans, Native Americans or Indigenous People have high genetic uniformity throughout the continent] and c) history: Modern day American Nations belong to Western culture due to European colonization.
To think:
North America and South America could well be 2 continents while America could be a region or Super Continent; but the Anglosphere and in particular the US Americans insist on calling them "The Americas" in plural, so that "America" as a geographical entity ceases to exist and so the United States of America can appropriate that name, which was not created by them or for them; This in particular seems to be the main obstacle that prevents them from being considered 2 separate continents universally.
Geologists, including myself, distinguish between lower density, granitic continental crust and higher density, basaltic oceanic crust. Plates typically consist of both kinds of crust separated by transform, divergent, or convergent boundaries. A few, notably the Pacific plate, are nearly solely oceanic crust bounded by convergent boundaries that produce the Ring of Fire. Lighter granitic crust floats higher on the mantle so extends above sea level giving us the more common definition of continent as land masses surrounded by ocean water. It’s the presence of considerable granitic composition crust extending around New Zealand that provide the basis for promoting Zealandia as its own continent, albeit mostly submerged.
So I followed most of what you shared and I appreciate you sharing it. Because some of it went right over my head, I have a question. Following the way continents are distinguished and accounting for the new continent of Zealandia, would the rest of the continents remain relatively unchanged and if not, where would the most notable changes occur? If it is easier to point me in a direction of some reference or source, feel free to do so as I’m interested in doing some self education on what sounds like a interesting subject.
@@danielhostetler9493 Geology student here.
If I remember correctly, I believe the rest of the continents would remain somewhat unchanged from the 7-continent model, with several fun exceptions including but not limited to:
- there is only one Eurasian plate
- southwestern California and Baja California are on a different plate than the rest of North America (causing many earthquakes as they grind past each other)
- the Arabian peninsula is its own plate, not part of the African or Eurasian plates
- Eastern Africa is its own plate, which will eventually be separated from the rest of Africa by a new ocean
@@eclogite thanks for the information, that’s really fascinating. It always amazes me how science has revealed the craziness that is our planet. Some of what you shared doesn’t surprise me at all such as the East African plate…the Rift Valley demonstrates that clearly. I’m kind of surprised about the Arabian Peninsula being separate and now I’m curious how that may have played into the oil reserves they had, if it does. Honestly, it’s these kinds of things that makes me wish they had known about ADHD and different learning styles when I was in school…I think my life would have been much different. Thanks again.
As far back as I can remember I've always been rather humbled by the idea that the solid ground I walk on is just floating on top of a sea of molten rock like dust floating on top of water. What seems so eternal is really, in geological time scales, just a bit of floating debris.
(Yes, I know that it's, in layman's terms, surface tension that lets dust float on water rather than a difference in density. Shut up. I'm waxing poetic. It doesn't happen very often. Just roll with it. It took a lot of effort to be that inaccurate without going back and making it right by using a more accurate, but less poetic, analogy.)
By now, the "idea" of continents has been so subsumed by politics, religion, prejudice - we laymen can't discuss the "continents" without falling into argument.
Which continent is the best? Which continent had the most impact on history? How were wars fought? etc.
All the geologist cares about is how these continents came together, formed, separated, and reformed - who cares about how the grubby little animals crawling on the surface got about their lives - over a million years - indeed, over a billion years -
An awful lot can happen, in a million years - much less a billion - that is all the geologist cares about - or should care -
I studied continental drift in college in the early 80’s. Its acceptance was so new, our “textbook” was an anthology of research papers to that date. The standard textbooks hadn’t caught up yet, even though its initial proposal was decades beforehand.
In 1979, Putnam's Geology was used in my Jr College, and covered the "evolution" of plate tectonics. But this was in California, where several plates meet, merge and slide past each other.
In elementary / Jr High (late 60's / early 70s) we were taught that plate tectonics was still considered a fringe theory with scant real world evidence not fully accepted in mainstream science. The mid Atlantic rift, for example, was not known. Nor was the African Rift Valley system understood. Guess looking at the South Atlantic ocean was too obvious.
I started my geological degree in 1974 when Plate Tectonics was arguably only about 6 years old (dated by the seminal papers and symposium of that year). Through my doctoral advisor, I met several of the researchers responsible for the culminating establishment of the theory. It's worth noting that my Historical Geology text book contained chapters on both Plate Tectonics and the Geosynclinal Model it was rapidly displacing.
On CZcams there's most of the episodes of Understanding the Earth, a TV series made in 1974 that severed as the lecture component for a university-level introductory geology survey course until 1986. The host talked about being a student attending the conference where plate tectonics went from being the fringe proposal to the accepted model.
Outstanding episode. It impresses me THG can compile this much information and present it so fluidly. As a geologist, I never heard any of the pre- Alfred Wegener concepts of continents. Thank you for enlightening us to this very interesting history.
Just wanted to thank you for the excellent content you produce. Appreciate you sharing your knowledge with the rest of us!
A doctor's office I used to visit had a large map in a frame on the wall, from the early 1500's I believe. I used to enjoy examining the details and I marveled at how amazing it was that they had remarkably accurate detail correct in some areas while other areas were pretty far off the mark. It's a fascinating subject and one that I have always been interested in, this is among my top 5 THG videos of all time!
The lesson I've always taken away from such things is that those people believed themselves to be just as wise and correct as we do today. We're all fools.
The old-style Long John Silvers fast food restaurants used to have metal versions of such maps. I don't think I've seen one since most of the Canadian outlets closed about 30 years ago.
A historian once told me, "There are no errors in history, only revisions."
14:03 England, France & other hat wearing islands is probably the most accurate description I've heard till date
I laughed outloud at that statement. Love it!😍
I'm old enough to remember being taught in school that Antarctica was considered a continent only provisionally until we figured out how much land was underneath the ice sheets. It was thought that it might turn out to be a series of land masses/islands like we see in far northern Canada.
And why didn't Greenland ever get consideration? On a Mercator map it's huge.
Plate tectonics, another bit of history worth remembering and so recent.
Love this channel!!!
Great episode! Reminds me of the whole argument of what is and isn't a planet!
So ‘Continental Drift’ is is a matter of not only Geography, but also of the history of geological and geographic thought: We are left with ‘Drift’ as the only firm element of the concept. While in this philosophically bold mood, you might consider taking on the question ‘What is the Definition of Species?’
I was in college when Plate Tectonics was talked about...it had not gotten into my geology text book yet.... this was very interesting. Thank-you
To keep the peace at a dinner party, avoid discussing politics, religion, and continents.
Also Planets
And The Great Pumpkin
In highschool geography in the late 60's, I seem to remember plate tectonics being mentioned as an interesting theory. I believe it was just called "continental drift" though.
Recently, some people have promoted the idea of a new continent: Zealandia which is largely underwater except for a portion of New Zealand. Good video, excellent maps and historical opinions, as usual on this channel, IMO.
Oh, thought that was Zoolander...lol
No one thinks that.
So its not a continent then, its an island.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography - A "continent" because it's composed of continental silica-rich rocks, rather than oceanic basaltic rocks ... and it's a much bigger island when sea levels are lower ...
Seems to me it would be a lot easier to just continue the current tradition of leaving New Zealand off most maps entirely and pretending it doesn't exist.
It is fascinating how humans must have a specific name for everything.
Growler - makes it a heck of a lot easier to talk about things. 🤷♂️
@@navret1707 What we just call "Snow" the Inuit have over thirty names. Just a thought.
Great video! I learned a number of things I had never heard of. Thank you!
Surprised to hear that North & South America were considered separate continents only as recently as the 1950's. If we go by the common (though by no means fully adequate) shorthand definition of continents as "Major landmass separated by water", could we then look upon South America as the first Man-made continent, created when it was separated from the greater American landmass by the Panama Canal? It was apparently never considered its own continent before then.
Suez canal beat them to it, separated Africa from Eurasia in the 1870's.
Another happy morning, this history guy has a new piece!
As I'm listening to this I'm hearing Paul Simon's "myth of fingerprints" as the theme song
Most of those ancient maps of continents I didn't know anything about, so it was good to learn a little something, even though I'll be 79 y/o this year. By the way, I thought that 3D spinning Earth with the clouds was pretty cool.
Whenever I hear "Ragnarok" I mentally flip it to "Fraggle Rock" so "Echoes of History: Fraggle Rock" and "Valhalla : Dawn of Fraggle Rock" even the Marval movie "Thor: Fraggle Rock"
I can't unread this
I can't understand a theory of continents that would combine the Americas, then not combine Africa with Asia and Europe.
Agreed. Two enormous land masses joined only by an exceedingly narrow isthmus are two separate continents, IMHO.
Continents, like all social constructs, are quite subject to change. I think this is a very interesting episode on how our conceptions of the "world" can often be so different. It's interesting to think that Herodotus once said that we couldn't be sure where the continents were due to lack of knowledge.
Excellent & informative!!! Thank you “THG”
This is quite intriguing; I wasn't aware that defining continents was so controversial!
As an Australian I've always been taught we are the worlds smallest continent its largest island.
How can we be both?
Assuming you weren't kidding around, they are 2 completely different things. An island being ANY area of land completely surrounded by water. And when I was in grade school, we were taught that a continent is an area of land that is encompassed primarily within one tectonic plate. Although I have doubted that most of my life, it is apparent that the continents are separated by a common geological feature. But north America is considered one continent, but is sepsrated in the center of the land. The continental divide through Colorado and points north. So, if there is a continental divide, wouldn't that be considered a separate continent ? Yet ALL world maps and globes to not recognize it as a separate continent. Which tells me that the definition including "separated by water" holds at least a little merit, no matter how little merit that is. So, Australia is most definitely an island surrounded by water on all sides. And for the most part, within one tectonic plate. I personally believe that it is quite possible for it to be part of asia. Because before the sea level rise after the last ice age, which we are still coming out of by the way, Australia is at the end of a land bridge that extended to southern asia but has since covered by hundreds of feet of water. I think the only thing we can count on is the fact that the powers that be cannot seem to agree on one definition.
About time someone recognized you for your voice as a narrator! You have a great voice and a great and unique way of making it understood!
THIS WAS GREAT!!! Thanks for posting.
There really are 6. But
Europe and Asia are so vastly different that they constitute 2 different regions. 3 if you count the middle east.
I have visited Armenia and Georgia a few times. The countries both view themselves as European, even though, nestled in the Caucasus, they are outside of the usual boundaries of Europe. Both are member states of some European institutions. So, perhaps a state of mind and affinity rather than geography?
@BRAMHASTRA PAKİSTAN NUKE go away, imperialist.
I found this to be particularly intriguing. Thanks for all your hard work. 🙏
I'm a scientist and my view of the "Continents of the World" is of strictly geological definition, IE large above ocean land masses. As such, In my view, there are 7 Continents on Earth. Eur-Asia, Africa, Australia, Greenland, North America, South America and last Antarctica. Social & cultural conventions have no place in scientific, merit based definitions.
According to your definition as a 'scientist', Africa would be part of a massive Afeurasia continent, and North and South America would just be America.
@@ApemanMonkey Nice troll remark. You're really living up to your screen-name.
Interesting.
Thank you for the lesson.
Absolutely love your videos! Some teachers could learn a thing or two from you.
I know I can!
Once again a enlightening video
Thank you
This all reminds me of the question 'is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?' To a botanist/biologist, all that grows on a plant is vegetation (although the growth of a fungi is described as vegetative as well), and there is a subset of the reproductive portions which are the fruit. So for a biologist, tomatoes, peppers, nuts, avocados, squash, etc. are all fruits. But culinarily, we distinguish savory from the sweet, though there is a small amount of overlap, as in the banana family which includes plantains.
Similarly, to a chemist the elements are divided into metals and nonmetals, depending on their properties, with a zigzag line on the Periodic Table from boron down to polonium or astatine (I checked several versions, they differ on which elements are actually transition elements, polonium and astatine seem to be the primary differences). By this division, hydrogen is a metal, placed far to the left because it displays the traits that chemists consider metallic. However, if you talk with an astrophysicist, a metal is anything other than hydrogen or helium. Why? Because those are the primordial elements that formed as soon as atoms were able to form from the Big Bang's ultrahot soup of plasma, not requiring the nuclear fusion reactions that occur in stars and gave rise to everything with more than 2 protons. There may be other considerations, but this is at the core of it.
The purpose of the discussion defines the words. A geologist will generally define continents by the tectonic aspects, and in that regard, Europe and India were both their won continents before they collided with Asia, causing the uprise which became the Ural and Himalaya Mountains respectively. Similarly North America collided with Europe, which created the Appalachian Mountains, but then they were separated by tectonics. Culturally, of course, there are significant distinctions between European culture, Indian culture, subSaharan African, far eastern Asian culture (there are a lot of other groupings one could make, and I avoided discussing whether Saharan culture should be generally joined with the other desert-based cultures of the MIddle East and central Asia) with much sharing having gone on over the millenia. The Americas are tectonically on different plates, but culturally are fairly divided into the regions where English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese languages predominate.
I enjoy your videos like this that explore a concept often taken for granted and put a historical perspective on it, thanks!
PS ~ Ever thought of doing an episode on Charles Dawes?
This was fascinating. Mapping the planet is so political! Politics versus geography? This video does shed new light on the last thousand years. The planet was viewed differently back then and the world wasn't the same as today. Not only would I be unable to communicate by speech with anybody back 1000 years ago, if I drew them a map even just 500 years ago I couldn't get through.
All borders are made up.
I had a girlfriend from Panama that taught Spanish and ESL in NC Public Schools. She was taught that 5 Continents were correct: Eurasia, America, Africa, Australia & Antarctica
Great video. Last year a bunch of us geologists got together, and for the first time defined a continent in a earth context. We also defined some other things like supercontinent, craton, megacontinent, continental fragment, proto-continent, etc. so at least we have that now. Geologically that leaves us basically what ppl are familiar with as Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, South America, and Greenland. That Zealandia thing is not a continent.
Just FYI: Continental drift was never a theory in the scientific sense. Wegener provided no testable mechanism. Although he came so close. It also didn’t evolve into plate tectonics. The two are different concepts. The only only thing the two have in common is the continents move about the surface. Wegener only guessed on how that happened. He definitely had no concept of plates. That’s not to say CD didn’t influence PT, but they aren’t synonyms.
I'm not trying to diminish the many accomplishment of Alfred Wegener or the importance of his idea of continental drift, but, as most scientists will tell you, plausible hypotheses are not accepted until there is a preponderance of direct or indirect evidence and (ideally - I'm looking at you, gravity) an explanation of mechanism, both of which were missing from his ideas until the 1950's and 60's. The fact that plate tectonics and continental drift are now the theoretical basis of much of Geology is a testament to the thoroughness of the evidence and the understanding of its mechanism. Or alternately, see the Max Planck quote in the sig.
richard
--
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
- Max Planck, October 2017
It is now suggested that there are EIGHT continents. Even though it's mostly underwater, this newly recognized continent consists of New Zealand and most of the South Pacific islands. It is separate from Australia.
I believe zealandia was once part of gondwana though as was australia.
I wasn't aware of that argument. Who has presented it?
@@marie_h1104 Fans of the All Blacks.
"Plutonia, the Dwarf Continent"
I have been waiting for this.
I have had the opportunity to visit most of the world's continents during my Naval career; North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Sailed within 1000 miles of Antarctica in 1993 while transiting the Straits of Magellan on USS Whidbey Island LSD 41 1993-96.
Well, I thought, Antarctica is surely closer than 1,000 miles, and so it is (at least the pointy bit), being ~1,375 km (or ~855 mi) from the eastern entrance to the strait. That's still a lot further than I expected. I must live in a smaller world. ;-)
You got close to Antarctica the only continent I haven't set foot on closest I've been is Picton at the top of the South Island of New Zealand.
*these entries are always fascinating and enjoyable to watch...which is kinda the point of them being made in the first place...dua*
Always enjoy the videos you produce. Thank you.
Your channel is great!
This was a fun one to listen to! What a variety of concepts have been used!
A very continental lecture that breaks boundaries and maps out how humanity attempted to imprint their own geopolitical biases upon the very Earth itself. With very little success.
Great video. Continent is such a weird concept. It has no real definition but rather just a list of constituent parts, a contested list as you have shown. Very interesting.
"The round peg of reality has refuse to fit comfortably in the square hole of human convention." Nice Quote, If I use it to Who should I give credit?
Good story. Even without pirates.
Or bad weather…
Dare I say that, in conclusion, I get your drift?
(I'll show myself out...)
I'm confused about Greenland, ruled by an European country, is generally left out of descriptions of
North America, but that is where it is located.
Greenland is considered an island, because it is part of the North American plate, thus also part of the continent of North America.
Australia is the next biggest land mass, & is considered a separate continent as it sits on a separate plate.
At least that's what I've always read / been taught.
I firmly believe Europe & Asia are one continent. There are no geologic arguments to be made for separation. Only political / social.
Thanks to Greenland, the third largest country in the North American continent is Denmark!
@@schroedingersdog7965 Greenland is almost it's own country now, they have been on the evolving path to independence for quite a while. Thus their Annoyance when Orangeman tried to "buy" Greenland from Denmark.
@@sideshowbob Hmmm . . . Do you think the United Kingdom would be willing to sell Canada? 😉
@@sideshowbob
To be clear, Greenland is not larger than Australia.
Thank you! I appreciate the way you put our modern concepts into the brief duration of human understanding!
Modern geology sometimes has trouble deciding how many continents there are, although it does better with deciding how many oceans there are.
For example, tectonics would divide Africa into two parts, because it has an active spreading zone in the African Rift Valley. It is less clear if Australia and India are one continent, because they are part of the same plate, or if they are two continents, because the connection is oceanic crust and thus geologically an ocean. Compare that to the definition of an ocean in tectonics, which holds it is simply a body of water over oceanic crust, so the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, and Indian Oceans are oceans, but so are the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and Black Sea, but not the Baltic Sea.
Shouldn't this entire conversation be settled with continental drift and tectonic plate knowledge?
Not really. That actually confounds things further
That complicates California quite a bit.
There are so many sub-plates & other one of a kind formations it becomes difficult. Although overall it seems to me the only thing we have wrong is considering Europe & Asia separate continents. There is little to no Geologic argument to be made for that. It is purely Political / Social.
@@Eddie42023 California thinks their their own world
Recently there’s been arguments that New Zealand is part of an 8th Continent, with most of it under water.
Back in the Saddle again!
Questions like this one are often impervious to rigorous definition.
If, for example, you define an "ocean" to be a large expanse of salt water on top of oceanic crust, you get three oceans: the World Ocean, the Black Sea, and the Caspian Sea.
You missed the discovery of Zealandia - an 8th continent which incorporates New Zealand and is mostly submerged. Whilst the sociological definitions of continents did precede continental drift and the plate tectonics which explains it there is a very clear difference between oceanic crust (virtually all
"Plutonia - the Dwarf Continent"
"Continent" is a strictly geographical term. By it's strictest definition there are four continents: Afro-Eurasia, America, Australia, and Antarctica. If allowing the definition to include divisions at very narrow isthmuses , there would be six: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica. In this case, a person cannot accept the Suez isthmus as a continental division without also accepting the Panamanian isthmus as a continental division. The division of Europe and Asia go on to incorporate many non-geographical factors, such as cultural or historical factors. These factors technically have zero impact on the geographical term "continent" but are universally accepted, leading to the seven continents model. Descriptions beyond the first two options are contradictory and un-geographical. Incorporating geology into this geographic term does have merit, but opens a whole new can of worms.
Well continents are an artificial construct just like planets lol
I'm surprised you made no mention of "sub-continents," like India for example.
Also - what is Arabia?
I love the comments that reflect a distinct bias based on where the commentor lives. Particularly when one is an inhabitant of one of the countries that share the name with the continent.
POV: you don't care about the topic, but watch the whole video anyway because THG always has great content.
Not many can say that they have walked on 6 of the 7 continents, I have.
With the Military?
Ayuh. Everywhere but Australia from me
@@HM2SGT Antarctica for me
@d0xin the (Fr)auditors Envious much? Or are you just doing your Don Rickles imitation, you hockey puck?!
Welcome to the club. So have I. The only one I have not yet been to is Antarctica.
And I love assassin's Creed, everywhere in every game is tons of real historical sites
You might not believe me, but last night I could not get to sleep, as I was trying to figure how many continents there are on earth! And now thanks to The History Guy, I get my answer! Thank you from beautiful Senoia, Georgia.
My high school son and I were talking about this the other day. I was surprised when he said there were 8 continents. I argued. I said 7. He showed me his geography book and world atlas. There was 8. It seems to change every generation. At least we can all agree on the number planets....
Back in my day we had 9 planets.
What is the 8th?
Thank you. I have long wondered about this.
If Europe is a continent, India has more claim to be one.
What about Uncle Arctica ? He gets no love !
Uncle Arctica is all washed up.
@@joesterling4299 🤣🤣🤣
🙄😩🤦😹👍
I really dislike how CZcams No longer shows the date the video was released, Posted, what ever the correct term is. The date of release Has been shown since, well all the time CZcams has offered videos. Now the date of posting can not be found in the description. How is the date of release not "information about a video"
Love your work, thanks
I think the distinction between Europe and Asia justifies their identification as separate continents, even if it strains geography.
North vs South America is a more obvious distinction - if Africa and Asia are separate, the Americans are too. One could even argue the Americans are even more separate since the Darien Gap remains a breakpoint in modern land transportation, unlike Sinai.
While I think most people would identify the Suez Canal as the separation between
Less clear to me is Australia as a continent (it has ocean currents in its favor), whether Oceania should be a continent, and whether they should be the same continent.
Your content is great! Can you do a video on the battle of New Orleans? Super interesting story and has pirates too
Europah, Asia, and Africa are Hebrew words denoting the direction people and nations went from the Tower of Babylon.
1, Europah is from Aravah- Toward the Setting sun or towards evening (ערבה)
2. Asia- Toward the Rising Sun
(אשיה)
3.Africa- Toward the Land set apart (פרקה)
All three end in the Ah suffix denoting the idea of heading toward a place.
That was wonderfully conceptual.
That last sentence could be said about all human endeavors!🐝🤗❤️
I love this channel.
Hey Playboy andClassmates, 👋 if you could find any historical lost land or city. What would be your top 3 places be ?
Classmates, I love it! I'm filching that and using it from now on.👍
@@HM2SGT Use carefully and give me props whenever you d0
Another seemingly dull topic made fascinating by The History Guy!
Lincoln canceled it's Continent (al) after 2020.
Well Australia can claim to be the only Continent that is also an Island and it's own Country.
That, again, depends upon the definition of continent.
@@TheHistoryGuyChannel Well as some of the factors pointed out in your story, Australia is a Large land Mass, it shares it's land with no other countries and it is surrounded by Oceans with no rivers, mountain ranges or land crossing, the closest land mass being PNG at 1653 km away from Darwin. I think we have a strong pretty strong case to be called a Continent!
Here's some interesting facts, love your channel by the way History Guy. The continent of Australia is sometimes defined as including mainland Australia and its surrounding islands including Tasmania, making it the world's smallest continent. When this definition is used, Australia is the world's only continent that is governed by a single nation state, Australia.
When defined as only Australia, the continent is approximately 7,690,000 square kilometres (2,970,000 sq mi) in size. It is the world's lowest lying continent, its highest point is Mount Kosciuszko with an elevation of 2,228 metres (7,310 ft), the lowest point is Lake Eyre which is 15 metres (49 ft) below sea level, and the continent’s average elevation is 330 metres (1,080 ft).
The definition of continent I learned stated that a continent is not an island. As a side note, Europeans (a Spaniard named Jansz as I recall) may have discovered Australia in 1606. However, there were modern humans there some 40,000+ years prior to that - or since a time when Europe was still being shared with Neanderthals.
@@TheHistoryGuyChannel It also depends on the definition of "island".
@@1936Studebaker Also, it is on its own tectonic plate. Indeed, its geological stability (few earthquakes) owes a lot to its being centrally located on its own plate.
The Earth's diameter was calculated in 240 BC and globes existed in the 1400s but both globe and flat paper maps were very inaccurate for much of history. The biggest problem with early maps was their scale. It was easy to measure latitude (north/south) but without accurate clocks onboard ships, longitude was, at best, a guess. You can see how distorted maps are in the east/west directions until the technology of telescopes and clocks and eclipses added accuracy in the 1800s
Holding my water for the Incontinence episode....
If we go by physical geography, it is hard to come up with any meaningful definition of "continent" that would make Europe a separate continent. The simplest definition would be a contiguous land mass of more than a certain area. How big we make that area would determine whether we count Australia as the smallest continent or the biggest island, and would make Europe, Asia and Africa a single continent, as well as combining North and South America. However, the Americas are connected by a narrow isthmus, as are Asia and Africa, so a decent argument could be made for considering them to be separate continents. There is no corresponding isthmus connecting Europe to Asia.
Four is not the smallest number,there is a good argument that continental shelfs should be counted this brings us back to three continents;Australia,Antarctica and that one which includes Europe,Asia ,Africa and America.
Why do I feel like I have a round peg in my hand ... New Zealand is considered by some as a separate continent from Australia, just mostly submerged ... and India is a separate continent from Asia, the Himalayas there are the crumple zone ... I've a framing hammer and I'm going to beat this round peg into this square hole ... or I'm going to break something ... and it won't be my hammer ...
Lately it's not a round peg in a square hole, but more of a oblate spheroid vs a flat Earth. Why haven't intrepid flat Earthers gone to the back side and found more continents, or at least some turtles, yet?
Darn. Last night I finished rereading (for the fourth time) Thud, the final book in the Guards series of the Discworld novels.
Amazing video...Thank the THG🎀 From an old Navy flying Shoe🇺🇸
"Hi there, I'm trying to get to Babylon."
Trying to draw a flat map of a round world: Mercator.
I noticed Creamoras strange shape,
I was only recently made aware that there is no good geological basis for defining a separation between Europe and Asia.
have you considered a video on the discovery and treatment of hookworm in the South?
Yuck! However, it is definitely history that I remember, as my sister, aged around 7, got hookworm while we lived in Alabama in 1957.
Really would like you (THG) to figure out how to put a ‘Made On…’ , and ‘Broadcast On…’ dates on your absolutely magnificent episodes. It would help people like me keep track of your information. Please.
How about the south pole at the top of a globe? That will blow their minds.