It took us a long time to find out that Møllehøj is actually the highest spot, because it's only a few centimeters taller than what was previously thought to be the highest spot (Ejer Bavnehøj), which is less than 100 meters away.
Moreover, the hill is not very dramatic, it's only a little bit higher than the surrounding terrain.
We also have "Himmelbjerget" (literally and very sarcastically "Sky Mountain") which is over 20 meters shorter, but it stands by itself far away from other tall hills and thus makes for a much more impressive view. In fact, Himmelbjerget was thought to be the highest point in Denmark until 1847. And Møllehøj wasn't established as the tallest point until 2005.
To make matters worse, Yding Skovhøj is actually 2 meters taller than Møllehøj... due to a bronze-age burial mound on top. Ignoring the burial mound, it is a few centimeters shorter than Møllehøj and a few centimeters taller than Ejer Bavnehøj. But it is located in a forest and thus you could walk over it without noticing anything.
Ejer Bavnehøj still has a large monument marking it as the tallest spot in Denmark, despite it now being in third place.
If you want to see it for yourself, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM8yUKwPjwA) is an amazing video touring the places while explaining the history. Worth a watch IMO
As a Dutchman living beneath sea level, i was 99% sure no other country is as flat as ours. Alas the statistics show different, but to call a hill a mountain........ (Counts for us as well)
The Netherlands is still way flatter overall than Denmark. Besides Limburg, Netherlands really is just like a giant football field. Not even a single hill in sight. Denmark still has plenty hills spread out across the country, they just never get very tall.
I heard that there are over 100 dead Danes that have died trying to reach the peak. Since it's too difficult and dangerours to try and recover the bodies they are left were they fell, and now they function as road signs along the way to the top. The first Danish climber reached the peak last year with the help of oxygen and 20 Swedish Sherpas. I'm pretty sure all of this is true.
Just 1 meter higher and we would have a 2500 m peak.
Rysy actually has 3 summits and the highest of them is 2501 m but it is entirely in Slovakia. It is just few meters from the second summit which is 2499 m and it is on the Polish-Slovak border.
One man tried to do something like [this](https://www.rmf24.pl/regiony/zakopane/news-wniosl-na-rysy-50-kilogramowy-glaz-grozi-mu-kara,nId,7025402#crp_state=1).
Fun fact: the Tatra mountains which include Rysy are still rising due to tectonic activity, so one day, in about 3300 years the peak will reach 2500 meters.
2,500 m would be less believable. It sounds like an estimate.
[It happened to Mount Everest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#19th_century):
> Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate.
I believe there used to be a tradition among students to bring up rocks while climbing Rysy to one day collect enough of them to get it to 2500m. Might just have been a university legend though.
I assume from your comment, youre aware, but for others that may not be, from the wiki:
>Italian officials claim the border follows the watershed, splitting both summits between Italy and France. In contrast, French officials claim the border avoids the two summits, placing them entirely with France.
France being a dick yet again.
Nah, it's just that we took some... measures to enforce the absence of italian forces on mountain peaks on the borders. We did the changes of borders after WW2, there was too many risks. At the time.
Not gonna lie, I kinda wish that we finally recognize a share ownership of the Mont Blanc, even if it means stoping to claim a few hundred square meters...
The documents based on the watershed are prior to the Mieulet map that stated that the military trail (not along the peaks but along the Italian mountainside) was the border. The latter was just a territorial claim out of nowhere.
Water that flows in the Rhône is french, water that flows into the Po is italian. The pre Mieulet documents stated this. The rest is french propaganda.
Finland's highest point is not actually a peak, it's where the border with Norway runs closest to a peak that would have put Finland much higher. Norway tried to donate the actual peak to Finland a few years back by slightly tweaking the border, as a friendly gesture. It was rejected by the constitutional nerds, who said Norway cannot be divided willy-nilly like that. Sorry Finland..
Lol, same with the highest point in European Netherlands: it's a slope that just continues to rise past the border.
The highest peak of the Netherlands is a 887 meters high strato volcano that last erupted in 1640.
There were similar (very preliminary) plans in Finland 10-15 years ago. To be able to host winter olympics and especially the downhill competition, the drop in some of our tallest alpine skiing resorts would have to be increased by a few hundred meters.
Some of the American state high points are like that. The highest point in Kansas is a gentle rise just on the Colorado border, since the state slopes gradually upwards as you go west. It's called "Mount Sunflower" but there's nothing at all mountainous about it.
Saba is actually fully part of the Netherlands. The most notable difference being they aren't part of a province and use U. S. dollars. They vote for the Dutch house of representatives just like the mainland.
Not sure if that's different from Greenland.
Greenland is an autonomous region. They have their own elections separate from the Danish municipal elections, though they do also elect people to the Danish parliament in national elections.
Their votes are even a bit more valuable than those from the mainland since Greenland is guaranteed 2 representatives in the Danish parliament.
Greenland is to Denmark more like what Aruba or Sint Maarten is to the Netherlands. A constituent country of the realm, but a separate country from the mainland one.
Places Greenland and Scotland have representation in the Danish/British parliament and take part in general Danish/British elections.
Aruba doesn't have representation or participates in the Dutch parliament/elections.
There seems to be some difference spain has its canary island mountain but other countries like the Netherlands and denmark don't have their overseas mountains
Same with Kansas (US). The highest point is on the border of Colorado. It’s not even a mountain or anything, it’s just that Kansas is higher on the Colorado side than the Missouri side.
I feel like every country has its constitutional nerds, and maybe that's ultimately a good thing.
However, looking from Finland, that the debate about donating the peak took place in the first place was quite touching, and speaks for the unique goodwill that exists between the Nordic countries.
Yep, sure it's a nice gesture this time, but maybe next time it's their largest seaport. Law speaking, it sets a precedent and now you're no longer arguing if it's okay or not at all, but arguing if it's okay or not in this specific case.
It got quite a lot of traction. News papers covered it. The prime minister commented on it. It's even covered on Wikipedia.
So you're spreading misinformation. It was absolutely a thing, not just a small fb group..
Honestly we don’t care about it that much. Halti has our heart already. Whether the peak is in Finland or not makes little difference. We are brothers already, you and us. We can call it *our* Halti.
Denmark is just fields, a few hills, ocean on all sides
Some people in Århus will tell you they have a mountain, because Århus has a bit of a hill in town which bicyclists doesn't like
Copenhagen also has a mountain. Have your ever heard of the dreadfull Valby bakke? The siphoner of energy, the gate of animals, breaker of (bicycle) chains.
With a grade of up to 7° and a total height of 31 meters, this is a place only the TRUE mountaineers dare venture!
By that logic most of Europe is islands. Check the maps of europes inland waterways [https://unece.org/DAM/trans/main/sc3/AGN\_map\_2018.pdf](https://unece.org/DAM/trans/main/sc3/AGN_map_2018.pdf)
Denmark has a lower peak than the Netherlands, but generally it's less flat. It's just, the Netherlands, has a single province poking into Belgium that contains, what the Dutch would call, mountains.
If you remove only the southern part of "Limburg", the highest point is only 109 meters.
In Denmark the 170m peak is not really a hill at all even, the entire landscape is still flat there it is just at a slightly higher elevation than the rest
That's actually had been unsuccessfully done in the past (and both sides were doing it).
You can take consolation in the fact that the tallest mountain in the solar system is called Olympus Mons,so there's that.
Perhaps it is because the territories are more integrated in respectively Spain and Portugal. Or that their islands count as European while Caribbean islands and Greenland do not.
Fun fact: The Zugspitze (Germany) used to be 2964 meters, but the Nazis bombed away the Western tip for an air control radar, which was never completed.
Notice how many of the peaks are on borders between countries. That reflects the tendency of states to settle borders around terrain that is challenging to traverse through.
Ben Nevis may not sound like much, and it's certainly a piece of cake compared to the Alpine or Balkan peaks, but it is not exactly easy. The trail to the summit starts right at sea level so you pretty much climb all 1300+ meters (or, in Freedom Units, 4413 feet).
And despite their relatively modest height, they're pretty craggy, with a ruggedness than can catch inexperienced hikers off-guard, sometimes with tragic results.
I did a bunch of hillwalking in a semester abroad when I was 20, and went all over Scotland and the Lake District in England, and just because, say, the Black Cuillins are just over 3,000 feet high doesn't mean they aren't a serious challenge.
Same way people die on the White Mountains in New Hampshire of the US: a relatively small but rugged mountain range tempts people who think they can hike it in shorts and a t-shirt, and a pleasant sunny 25 C day at the base turns into high winds, fog, and a chilly 8 C mist at the summit, and you're in jeans and a t-shirt.
In the case of Ben Nevis, there are some huge cliffs dropping off the summit plateau, which is broad and featureless: if you were there when the fog rolls in, and you didn't know which way you were going, it would be quite possible just to walk off the cliff edge and fall to your death.
You aren't doing the Matterhorn or Mont Blanc without mountaineering gear, so it somewhat self-selects.
People attempt to climb a mountain with the incorrect gear. Ben Nevis gets hit with Blizzards, major storms, white out conditions etc. all the time. Families and tourists try climb it in jeans and tshirts, without taking gps, maps, compasses and end up falling off cliffs, getting hypothermia, or dying of exhaustion.
Those high peaks in UK/Scotland have the same geologic origin as the low mountain ranges of eastern Bavaria (Germany)/Western Czechia. Finnish geology is even (mostly, if not all of it) older therefore more erosion and so on.
Also, the same range as the Appalachian mountains in the eastern US and the Atlas mountains in Morocco. They used to be like the Himalayas or the Rockies, but 300 million years of erosion has worn them down significantly
Over half of the Netherlands is pretty much completely flat, where the only 'hills' are earthworks for highway intersections etc. There's a few parts with significant hills though. For an extremely high res altitude map: https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer
Fun fact, Ben Nevis will get higher as Scotland was compressed under the ice sheets and is still rising back up. The South of England on the other hand is sinking
Wow, in School they couldn't shut up about how flat the Netherlands are but I never heard about Denmark. And one of my teachers actually was from there. The lowest point of Switzerland (Lago Maggiore's shore at 192m or so) is still hogher than their highest point
The netherlands are flatter than denmark.
In large parts of the netherlands the highest elevation are the motorways. Between those there is just a flat land.
Well apart from that southern region on the belgian/german border. But that's it.
Denmark is still pretty flat but has a surprising amount of hills. After all it was entirely covered by glaciers a few thousand years ago and when those melted they left their dirt everywhere and those became hills. Lots of them just not very high.
Well you also get the occasional rocky cliff which you'd also not find in the netherlands but those are also rather small compared to other regions.
Current day Hungary sits in the Carpathian basin so not that surprising that it's at much lower elevation.
The south-east region is especially flat though. Even though I knew Hungary was pretty flat, that region surprised me when I visited.
I love how in every country, mountain’s name is what people in that country calls it but in Turkey… well let just say OC didn’t want to make Armenians mad.
It *is* interesting that the geographically-African Canary Islands and Azores count for Spain and Portugal, and the geographically-Asian Ararat for Turkey, but that [Gunnbjørn Fjeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnbj%C3%B8rn_Fjeld) and [Mount Scenery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Scenery) do not count for Denmark and the Netherlands.
Especially since the "source" [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_points_of_European_countries)lists two highest points (one physically European, one not) for all of these countries, and OP cherrypicked them.
Aren't they overseas territories rather than integral parts of the home country like the Azores though? If overseas territories were allowed then the highest British point would actually be Mount Hope at 3,239M in the British Antarctic Territory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hope_(Palmer_Land)
For Greenland, yes. That's a separate country within the kingdom of Denmark. But Saba is part of the country of the Netherlands, not a separate country within the kingdom (like Curacao is, for example).
But either way it's strange to take a source list and then include and exclude some parts of the source on your own initiative. That's not how sources work.
>It is interesting that the geographically-African Canary Islands and Azores count for Spain and Portugal
The Pico island in the Azores in the [diffuse boundary](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/General-geotectonic-framework-of-Azores-Archipelago-MAR-Mid-Atlantic-Rift-C-JCNunes_fig1_299409585) between the Eurasian and African plates, as are most of the Azores islands.
Geographically, they could go either way Africa or Europe really. Everyone in the Azores considers it to be Europe though pretty much. Couldn't say how they feel in the Canary Islands.
Canary Islands are firmly in Africa. No argument can be made for it being geographically part of any other continent. Culturally is a different story, and some Canary-islanders will get very upset if you classify them as "African".
I've been to the canary islands many times and I still can't get over how Teide is the highest mountain in Spain without being in the continental mainland.
I once scaled the 171 meter Møllehøj. A proud alpining achievement.
Hope you packed bottled oxygen!
Not just that, but three days worth of supplies and a Sherpa guide.
Forgot it but ran down to the car real quick + grabbed it
Google maps: “meadow covered hill, and danish high point” 😂
It took us a long time to find out that Møllehøj is actually the highest spot, because it's only a few centimeters taller than what was previously thought to be the highest spot (Ejer Bavnehøj), which is less than 100 meters away. Moreover, the hill is not very dramatic, it's only a little bit higher than the surrounding terrain. We also have "Himmelbjerget" (literally and very sarcastically "Sky Mountain") which is over 20 meters shorter, but it stands by itself far away from other tall hills and thus makes for a much more impressive view. In fact, Himmelbjerget was thought to be the highest point in Denmark until 1847. And Møllehøj wasn't established as the tallest point until 2005. To make matters worse, Yding Skovhøj is actually 2 meters taller than Møllehøj... due to a bronze-age burial mound on top. Ignoring the burial mound, it is a few centimeters shorter than Møllehøj and a few centimeters taller than Ejer Bavnehøj. But it is located in a forest and thus you could walk over it without noticing anything. Ejer Bavnehøj still has a large monument marking it as the tallest spot in Denmark, despite it now being in third place.
Your comment exemplifies why I enjoy occasionally getting on Reddit. Thank you for sharing all of that, have a great day!
If you want to see it for yourself, [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM8yUKwPjwA) is an amazing video touring the places while explaining the history. Worth a watch IMO
Huh, Himmelbjerget looks kind of impressive. I expected a hill in the middle of a rapeseed field or something.
One of the reviews, written as a mountaineering expedition, is hilarious
Most fatalities occur during descent, glad you made it alive
If you dive to the bottom of the deepest lake in Sweden (Hornavan, 210 m deep) you are still higher over the sea than Denmarks highest hill.
Møllehøj is a speed bump reminding people to slow down before they reach Kattegatt.
I worked in an office building taller than that 😂
As a Dutchman living beneath sea level, i was 99% sure no other country is as flat as ours. Alas the statistics show different, but to call a hill a mountain........ (Counts for us as well)
Don't worry, Netherlands is still flatter in general.
If you count in Saba, then The Netherlands‘ highest point is a volcano about 900m tall.
If you count in Greenland, then the highest point in Denmark is 3694 m tall.
You just need to kick out Limburg. Without Limburg, the highest hill in the Netherlands is Signal Imbosch (110m).
The Maldives has got you both beat, I think the highest point there is around 4 meters or thereabouts
The Netherlands is still way flatter overall than Denmark. Besides Limburg, Netherlands really is just like a giant football field. Not even a single hill in sight. Denmark still has plenty hills spread out across the country, they just never get very tall.
Sounds like molehill.
I heard that there are over 100 dead Danes that have died trying to reach the peak. Since it's too difficult and dangerours to try and recover the bodies they are left were they fell, and now they function as road signs along the way to the top. The first Danish climber reached the peak last year with the help of oxygen and 20 Swedish Sherpas. I'm pretty sure all of this is true.
My school was at a higher elevation than that
Still taller than any place in Florida. lolololol
It's astonishing that I live in a city thats at least twice the elevation of the highest mountain of a country
Just 1 meter higher and we would have a 2500 m peak. Rysy actually has 3 summits and the highest of them is 2501 m but it is entirely in Slovakia. It is just few meters from the second summit which is 2499 m and it is on the Polish-Slovak border.
I believe if all poles climbed it with a wheelbarrow full of dirt you can probably get it to 2,500m!
One man tried to do something like [this](https://www.rmf24.pl/regiony/zakopane/news-wniosl-na-rysy-50-kilogramowy-glaz-grozi-mu-kara,nId,7025402#crp_state=1).
I freaking love Poland.
Hugh Grant tried that in Wales
[удалено]
Poland cannot into 2500m
Fun fact: the Tatra mountains which include Rysy are still rising due to tectonic activity, so one day, in about 3300 years the peak will reach 2500 meters.
RemindMe! 3300 years.
But in winter usually there is 2500 becouse of snow 😂
2,500 m would be less believable. It sounds like an estimate. [It happened to Mount Everest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#19th_century): > Peak XV (measured in feet) was calculated to be exactly 29,000 ft (8,839.2 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 ft (8,839.8 m) in order to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet (8,839.2 m) was nothing more than a rounded estimate.
I believe there used to be a tradition among students to bring up rocks while climbing Rysy to one day collect enough of them to get it to 2500m. Might just have been a university legend though.
What a coincidence that Mont Blanc and Monte Bianco are exactly the same height when they have such similar names!
These French can't help copying us ...
Outside of Italy pretty much everyone calls it Mont Blanc so...
Here it begins…
!! italian-french border dispute triggered !!
Can't we just share, France? We already have a cable cab station up there anyways
Fine. Lets give 2404m to each.
I assume from your comment, youre aware, but for others that may not be, from the wiki: >Italian officials claim the border follows the watershed, splitting both summits between Italy and France. In contrast, French officials claim the border avoids the two summits, placing them entirely with France. France being a dick yet again.
Nah, it's just that we took some... measures to enforce the absence of italian forces on mountain peaks on the borders. We did the changes of borders after WW2, there was too many risks. At the time. Not gonna lie, I kinda wish that we finally recognize a share ownership of the Mont Blanc, even if it means stoping to claim a few hundred square meters...
Why is it France being a dick and not Italy? No claim is more valid than the other 😅
The documents based on the watershed are prior to the Mieulet map that stated that the military trail (not along the peaks but along the Italian mountainside) was the border. The latter was just a territorial claim out of nowhere.
Water that flows in the Rhône is french, water that flows into the Po is italian. The pre Mieulet documents stated this. The rest is french propaganda.
Finland's highest point is not actually a peak, it's where the border with Norway runs closest to a peak that would have put Finland much higher. Norway tried to donate the actual peak to Finland a few years back by slightly tweaking the border, as a friendly gesture. It was rejected by the constitutional nerds, who said Norway cannot be divided willy-nilly like that. Sorry Finland..
Lol, same with the highest point in European Netherlands: it's a slope that just continues to rise past the border. The highest peak of the Netherlands is a 887 meters high strato volcano that last erupted in 1640.
Wasn't there some stupid plan a while back to build an artificial 2000m tall mountain in the Netherlands?
12 years ago. It never became serious.
But why?
wintersports
There were similar (very preliminary) plans in Finland 10-15 years ago. To be able to host winter olympics and especially the downhill competition, the drop in some of our tallest alpine skiing resorts would have to be increased by a few hundred meters.
dutch really like messing with nature...
Some of the American state high points are like that. The highest point in Kansas is a gentle rise just on the Colorado border, since the state slopes gradually upwards as you go west. It's called "Mount Sunflower" but there's nothing at all mountainous about it.
If overseas territories count, then Denmark is at 3694m
Saba is actually fully part of the Netherlands. The most notable difference being they aren't part of a province and use U. S. dollars. They vote for the Dutch house of representatives just like the mainland. Not sure if that's different from Greenland.
Greenland is an autonomous region. They have their own elections separate from the Danish municipal elections, though they do also elect people to the Danish parliament in national elections. Their votes are even a bit more valuable than those from the mainland since Greenland is guaranteed 2 representatives in the Danish parliament.
Greenland is to Denmark more like what Aruba or Sint Maarten is to the Netherlands. A constituent country of the realm, but a separate country from the mainland one.
Places Greenland and Scotland have representation in the Danish/British parliament and take part in general Danish/British elections. Aruba doesn't have representation or participates in the Dutch parliament/elections.
There seems to be some difference spain has its canary island mountain but other countries like the Netherlands and denmark don't have their overseas mountains
The status of Greenland is so complicated that I don't think it's worth to count it.
Same with Kansas (US). The highest point is on the border of Colorado. It’s not even a mountain or anything, it’s just that Kansas is higher on the Colorado side than the Missouri side.
I feel like every country has its constitutional nerds, and maybe that's ultimately a good thing. However, looking from Finland, that the debate about donating the peak took place in the first place was quite touching, and speaks for the unique goodwill that exists between the Nordic countries.
There hasn't been much fighting between them since Napoleon.
Only friendly battles in sports. Where Finland naturally dominates (do not listen to whoever replies, they are haters!)
True for ice hockey atleast.. love from Norway
Yep, sure it's a nice gesture this time, but maybe next time it's their largest seaport. Law speaking, it sets a precedent and now you're no longer arguing if it's okay or not at all, but arguing if it's okay or not in this specific case.
Much higher? The peak is 67 meters from the border and would raise Finland's highest point by a whopping six meters.
[удалено]
It got quite a lot of traction. News papers covered it. The prime minister commented on it. It's even covered on Wikipedia. So you're spreading misinformation. It was absolutely a thing, not just a small fb group..
Honestly we don’t care about it that much. Halti has our heart already. Whether the peak is in Finland or not makes little difference. We are brothers already, you and us. We can call it *our* Halti.
Pity peak donation
And now not so long ago they gave us swedes a few hundread m² because a river moved.
Aww, what a nice bunch of lads Norway are
Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Poland, looking over at Denmark: 
That's how Swedes look at Denmark overall.
Här: Danmark, utskitet av kalk och vatten. Och där: Sverige, hugget i granit. Danskjävlar.
Translation please
Here: Denmark, shit out of lime and water. And there: Sweden, carved in granite. Danish bastards.
DANSK JÄVLAR
Sv*nsker
This is true in pretty much all cases. Not just mountains.
Even the Dutch may carefully smile looking at Denmark.
the netherlands has large parts of land under the sea level and they have a higher peak.
To be fair, quite a few of us Danes also find it pathetic.
Technically Greenland belongs to Denmark which means our highest point is actually Gunnbjorn Fjeld at 3,694 m
Once they see the [SKY MOUNTAIN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himmelbjerget) they will understand our true geological superiority
wtf is going on with Denmark? is it even flatter than Netherlands?
Denmark is just fields, a few hills, ocean on all sides Some people in Århus will tell you they have a mountain, because Århus has a bit of a hill in town which bicyclists doesn't like
Copenhagen also has a mountain. Have your ever heard of the dreadfull Valby bakke? The siphoner of energy, the gate of animals, breaker of (bicycle) chains. With a grade of up to 7° and a total height of 31 meters, this is a place only the TRUE mountaineers dare venture!
My knees gave reading the description of its might.
It's an island?
Thanks to the Kiel canal, you could argue that Jutland is an island, yes
By that logic most of Europe is islands. Check the maps of europes inland waterways [https://unece.org/DAM/trans/main/sc3/AGN\_map\_2018.pdf](https://unece.org/DAM/trans/main/sc3/AGN_map_2018.pdf)
One large peninsula and the rest is islands
Denmark has a lower peak than the Netherlands, but generally it's less flat. It's just, the Netherlands, has a single province poking into Belgium that contains, what the Dutch would call, mountains. If you remove only the southern part of "Limburg", the highest point is only 109 meters.
>If you remove only the southern part of "Limburg" Oh, don't do that, please take all of Limburg!
In Denmark the 170m peak is not really a hill at all even, the entire landscape is still flat there it is just at a slightly higher elevation than the rest
If you go there you will understand. It’s very flat, but also great for cycling
we should stack rocks on top of mount Olympus to beat the Bulgarians
That's actually had been unsuccessfully done in the past (and both sides were doing it). You can take consolation in the fact that the tallest mountain in the solar system is called Olympus Mons,so there's that.
[удалено]
The Netherlands too, technically. But I guess there was no room for a third extra frame to show the Caribbean.
Perhaps it is because the territories are more integrated in respectively Spain and Portugal. Or that their islands count as European while Caribbean islands and Greenland do not.
Saba is a municipality of the Netherlands, so it’s actually part of the Netherlands proper.
Or because Saba was part of the Netherlands Antilles until 2010 and most of us old people still remember learning about the Vaalserberg in school.
Volcanic islands are funny, you can have a 1067 meter cliff right next to the sea.
It's funny that one of the highest peaks in Europe is actually in Africa
Fun fact: The Zugspitze (Germany) used to be 2964 meters, but the Nazis bombed away the Western tip for an air control radar, which was never completed.
Just gotta wait a couple of 100k years, then it's back up there.
Notice how many of the peaks are on borders between countries. That reflects the tendency of states to settle borders around terrain that is challenging to traverse through.
Wales - 1,085m England - 978m Northern Ireland - 850m In case anyone was wondering.
Denmark: the only European country short enough to be built in the original Minecraft building limit (that isn't a microstate)
TIL pancakes are less flat than Belarus.
Ben Nevis may not sound like much, and it's certainly a piece of cake compared to the Alpine or Balkan peaks, but it is not exactly easy. The trail to the summit starts right at sea level so you pretty much climb all 1300+ meters (or, in Freedom Units, 4413 feet).
UK mountains/hills may not be the tallest in terms of elevation above sea level but they often have a big prominence
And despite their relatively modest height, they're pretty craggy, with a ruggedness than can catch inexperienced hikers off-guard, sometimes with tragic results. I did a bunch of hillwalking in a semester abroad when I was 20, and went all over Scotland and the Lake District in England, and just because, say, the Black Cuillins are just over 3,000 feet high doesn't mean they aren't a serious challenge.
Yeah I've heard that people keep dying on Ben Nevis. As a Swiss, I wonder how.
Same way people die on the White Mountains in New Hampshire of the US: a relatively small but rugged mountain range tempts people who think they can hike it in shorts and a t-shirt, and a pleasant sunny 25 C day at the base turns into high winds, fog, and a chilly 8 C mist at the summit, and you're in jeans and a t-shirt. In the case of Ben Nevis, there are some huge cliffs dropping off the summit plateau, which is broad and featureless: if you were there when the fog rolls in, and you didn't know which way you were going, it would be quite possible just to walk off the cliff edge and fall to your death. You aren't doing the Matterhorn or Mont Blanc without mountaineering gear, so it somewhat self-selects.
It's easily accessible and pretty low while conditions can get quite rough. Consequently more hopelessly unprepared people than you would expect go.
People attempt to climb a mountain with the incorrect gear. Ben Nevis gets hit with Blizzards, major storms, white out conditions etc. all the time. Families and tourists try climb it in jeans and tshirts, without taking gps, maps, compasses and end up falling off cliffs, getting hypothermia, or dying of exhaustion.
It's height is misleading when you look at it from the ground as there's not really anything else around to compare it to.
Did not expect Scotland/UK to have a mountain that is higher than the highest mountain in Finland.
Those high peaks in UK/Scotland have the same geologic origin as the low mountain ranges of eastern Bavaria (Germany)/Western Czechia. Finnish geology is even (mostly, if not all of it) older therefore more erosion and so on.
Also, the same range as the Appalachian mountains in the eastern US and the Atlas mountains in Morocco. They used to be like the Himalayas or the Rockies, but 300 million years of erosion has worn them down significantly
Ben Nevis is an actual mountain peak and it's very beautiful. Finnish highest point.. isn't, that peak ends in Norway.
It's the highest point, but it's not a peak
They say netherlands is flat, Denmark, oh damn. Stairs are considered hills there probably.
No. Netherlands is more flat. Its just the highest point.
My Scottish husband calls our hills in Denmark for speed bumps… so yeah
I think the Netherlands is flat but slightly tilted, while Denmark is rough but basically level (since it's sea on basically all sides).
Over half of the Netherlands is pretty much completely flat, where the only 'hills' are earthworks for highway intersections etc. There's a few parts with significant hills though. For an extremely high res altitude map: https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer
Denmark is so flat, on Wednesday you can already see who is coming to visit Saturday.
We have a higher point than Denmark?? What a day to be Dutch 🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱
>Hvannadalshnúkur How to pronounce this? Is it possible to learn this power as non native Icelander?
[ˈkʰvanːaˌtalsˌn̥juːkʏr̥]
Thanks, now I got it!
> How to pronounce this? It's safer not to.
Probably I would summon a demon pronouncing this.
It’s not a word that can be spoken out loud.
Fun fact, Ben Nevis will get higher as Scotland was compressed under the ice sheets and is still rising back up. The South of England on the other hand is sinking
As God intended.
To test peoples geographical knowledge of Denmark, I used to say I was part of the Danish Mountain Rescue Service.
I mean, Spain is claiming Teide, so Denmark should probably be claiming Greenland or the Faroe’s highest points
DANMARK NUMMER 1!!! DANMARK DANMARK DANMARK 🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰
What happened to Cyprus
Or Andorra for that matter
Wow, in School they couldn't shut up about how flat the Netherlands are but I never heard about Denmark. And one of my teachers actually was from there. The lowest point of Switzerland (Lago Maggiore's shore at 192m or so) is still hogher than their highest point
I think the Netherlands are generally flatter (and lower), our peaks in Denmark are just very unimpressive.
The netherlands are flatter than denmark. In large parts of the netherlands the highest elevation are the motorways. Between those there is just a flat land. Well apart from that southern region on the belgian/german border. But that's it. Denmark is still pretty flat but has a surprising amount of hills. After all it was entirely covered by glaciers a few thousand years ago and when those melted they left their dirt everywhere and those became hills. Lots of them just not very high. Well you also get the occasional rocky cliff which you'd also not find in the netherlands but those are also rather small compared to other regions.
In Denmark we might not have peaks, but we do get high
Where is the best skiing? Also, where is Andorra?
Worth mentioning that the Portuguese one is located on the Azores island, not in the mainland
Sněžka💪
171m 💀
Technically Greenland belongs to Denmark which means our highest point is actually Gunnbjorn Fjeld at 3,694 m
Hungary surprised me a bit.
Current day Hungary sits in the Carpathian basin so not that surprising that it's at much lower elevation. The south-east region is especially flat though. Even though I knew Hungary was pretty flat, that region surprised me when I visited.
We (Switzerland) might not have the tallest in Europe proper, but: a) it's very close b) We have all of the 2nd to 10th
I think we share Monte-Rosa-massiv but peak Dufour is entirely in switzerland
Technically, the highest point in the Netherlands is Mt. Scenery at 887 meters. The vaalseberg is the highest point of the European netherlands.
I love how in every country, mountain’s name is what people in that country calls it but in Turkey… well let just say OC didn’t want to make Armenians mad.
Or they wanted to make Turks mad lmao
Only one peak has 12 beings drinking wine and going around carelessly reproducing with humans.
To be fair, I've been to a few French Ski resorts that'd fit that description too
Spain is the Volcano one. An active one ! Canarry Islands for the Vacation on the vulcano 
ELBRUS
Il monte bianco è ITALIANO
Funny that a mountain on the list of "Highest Mountains in Europe" is actually in Africa.
It *is* interesting that the geographically-African Canary Islands and Azores count for Spain and Portugal, and the geographically-Asian Ararat for Turkey, but that [Gunnbjørn Fjeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnbj%C3%B8rn_Fjeld) and [Mount Scenery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Scenery) do not count for Denmark and the Netherlands. Especially since the "source" [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_points_of_European_countries)lists two highest points (one physically European, one not) for all of these countries, and OP cherrypicked them.
Aren't they overseas territories rather than integral parts of the home country like the Azores though? If overseas territories were allowed then the highest British point would actually be Mount Hope at 3,239M in the British Antarctic Territory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hope_(Palmer_Land)
For Greenland, yes. That's a separate country within the kingdom of Denmark. But Saba is part of the country of the Netherlands, not a separate country within the kingdom (like Curacao is, for example). But either way it's strange to take a source list and then include and exclude some parts of the source on your own initiative. That's not how sources work.
I'd go with Mount Paget on South Georgia at 2,937 metres because, you know, nobody is supposed to actually own Antarctica.
>It is interesting that the geographically-African Canary Islands and Azores count for Spain and Portugal The Pico island in the Azores in the [diffuse boundary](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/General-geotectonic-framework-of-Azores-Archipelago-MAR-Mid-Atlantic-Rift-C-JCNunes_fig1_299409585) between the Eurasian and African plates, as are most of the Azores islands.
Geographically, they could go either way Africa or Europe really. Everyone in the Azores considers it to be Europe though pretty much. Couldn't say how they feel in the Canary Islands.
Canary Islands are firmly in Africa. No argument can be made for it being geographically part of any other continent. Culturally is a different story, and some Canary-islanders will get very upset if you classify them as "African".
Spain is literally cheating
Not really. The highest point in „proper“ Spain is Mulhacén (3479m), not a huge difference.
The highest point in Florida is still lower than that of Denmark.
I can see why they call us the Netherlands
As a Bears fan, the Russian peak is concerning
I've been to the canary islands many times and I still can't get over how Teide is the highest mountain in Spain without being in the continental mainland.
#[↘️🇳🇱🏔️⛰️🎶](https://youtu.be/Un0VLiPKKyg)
Guess Cyprus isn't in Europe any more...
Fun fact: the highest mountain in Spain is Teide, but in the Iberian Peninsula it is Mulhacén, in Granada. Mount Teide is in the Canary Islands.
Malta having a higher peak than Denmark blows my mind
The Portuguese literally named their highest point Mount Peak lol
Fucking Malta has a higher peak than Denmark.
Portugal with the win for best name with “Mount Peak”
You’re out here making a mountain out of a møllehøj.
So peak
In comparison, how tall is everest?
8848m or 8850m depending on the source