What size do hills have to be to become mountains or does?.......?

Question

Something else define the difference?......

Answer 1

Well you won't get much help looking in the dictionary, it simply says, landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill?

One does not need to be a geologist to know what a mountain is; indeed there is no precise definition of mountain, though in most cases the distinction between a mountain and a hill is fairly obvious. On the other hand, the defining characteristics of a volcano are more apparent. Created by violent tectonic forces, a volcano usually is considered a mountain, and almost certainly is one after it erupts.

In the 1995 film The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain, the British actor Hugh Grant plays an English cartographer, or mapmaker, sent in 1917 by his government to measure what is purportedly "the first mountain inside Wales." He quickly determines that according to standards approved by His Majesty, the "mountain" in question is, in fact, a hill. Much of the film's plot thereafter revolves around attempts on the part of the villagers to rescue their beloved mountain from denigration as a "hill," a fate they prevent by piling enough rocks and dirt onto the top to make it meet specifications.

This comedy aptly illustrates the somewhat arbitrary standards by which people define mountains. The British naturalist Roderick Peattie (1891-1955), in his 1936 book Mountain Geography, maintained that mountains are distinguished by their impressive appearance, their individuality, and their impact on the human imagination. This sort of qualitative definition, while it is certainly intriguing, is of little value to science; fortunately, however, more quantitative standards exist.

In Britain and the United States, a mountain typically is defined as a landform with an elevation of 985 ft. (300 m) above sea level. This was the standard applied in The Englishman, but the Welsh villagers would have had a hard time raising their "hill" to meet the standards used in continental Europe: 2,950 ft. (900 m) above sea level. This seems to be a more useful standard, because the British and American one would take in high plains and other nonmountainous regions of relatively great altitude. On the other hand, there are landforms in Scotland that rise only a few hundred meters above sea level, but their morphologic characteristics or shape seem to qualify them as mountains. Not only are their slopes steep, but the presence of glaciers and snow-capped peaks, with their attendant severe weather and rocky, inhospitable soil, also seem to indicate the topography associated with mountains.

Answer 2

There is no official definition.

But it is regarded any land mass 2000' (609m) or over above sea level is a mountain. Any thing lower is classed as a hill.

In Great Britain, the mountains are called by different names depending on their height, for example, Marilyns (at least 150m), Hewitts, Wainwrights, etc. There is a list of different names for the hills and mountains in Scotland, such asMunros (3000', 914m), Grahams (2000' - 2500', 609m - 762.)

Answer 3

I think that it could be just a matter of perspective... Most hills were once mountains that have eroded away but many hills are still called mountains eg. Allegheny Mountains are nothing more than foothills

Answer 4

Aren't hills just baby mountains? That's what I was taught in my geology degree.

Answer 5

sorry don't know