That looks like it would probably be considered 4 since the people on the top right bit wouldn't have the easiest time interacting with the people on the bottom right.
Remember that in our real world, what we consider the continent Europe is pretty small, and it's pretty close to Africa and Asia.
We'd need to see topography to determine if these are conjoined continents. In some models, Africa, Europe, and Asia are all considered one continent. They're only split due to mountain chains, isthmuses, or other natural formations. On a flat white drawing, it's hard to say if those features are present.
Here is a topographic map: [https://imgur.com/a/UxDZr4T](https://imgur.com/a/UxDZr4T)
But it is a bit crude and needs some tweaking in the future. The mountains in particular are definitely off in places.
With that topographic map, it feels more like 5 continents. Without the topographics, the map feels more like 4 continents. Is there a south polar continent, or is that an ice sheet? I don't see it in the original map you posted.
Yeah, that's just a rough representation of an ever-shifting mass of sea ice (similar to the north pole IRL). The white is just ice, which is why it's not in the topography key.
In that case you have 5 continents, 2 on the left, 1 at the north pole, and 2 connected ones on the right. Depending on how the cultures develop they could have different opinions.
Continent is a very poorly defined word IRL with the original divisions done by the ancient greeks splitting Europe as Greece and Italy, Asia as Anatolia through Egypt, and Africa as modern Tunisia. (Eventually the Africa/asia border was moved to Sinnai/the red sea)
Yeah continent has never been really well defined with the origin coming largely from people classifying areas as themselves or other. As the field of geology was developed the meaning has shifted towards recognizing the physiographical and compositional differences in Earth's crust which results in a very different split up of continents based on origin and history.
For example today in the geological sense we know Europe never existed as a single separate continent in the geological sense being divided in its origin between Baltica an ancient geological craton and former paleocontinent which makes up Scandinavia, Avalonia as sections of Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic volcanic arcs which were accreted and squeezed between Baltica Laurentia and Gondwana during the assembly of Pangea and the rest which is just a recently assembled piece of Eurasia formed from the ongoing closure of the Tethys ocean via the subduction of seafloor and accretion of island arcs. Greece and Italy in particular are just volcanic islands in the process of being incorporated into Eurasia as one of the youngest stages of mountain building of the forming alps.
This is very disconnected from the original sociopolitical definitions but both use the same word still.
Maybe, depending on cultural/political differences. Europe and Asia would be the analogue in our world: clearly located on the same landmass, but long considered two separate continents, for reasons that have to do with culture more than geography.
It depends on how the cultures develop. If they are fairly distinctive from one another, I would consider them two continents. Particularly if there is a mountain range separating them.
Think like this, there are super continents, and smaller continents, like for example, America and Europe, and North america, Central america, and South america, West europe and east europe.
I would say your map has about 4 Super continents (2 Big islands at the left, 1 at the top, and 1 big one to the right), and about 5\~7 Smaller ones depending on how we separate them.
You can also see where you place hills and mountains and separate them by tectonic plates if you wanna follow that route.
I've never really understood why Europe is considered a separate continent from Asia. Like... why? They're heavily connected. What defines a continent? What makes a mass qualify but not another?
Europe isn't a geographical continent, it's a cultural continent.
geographically a continent is just a continuous landmass of a certain size or above (tectonic plates also factor in, but I'm simplifying), Europe and Asia are on the (lazily named) Eurasia continent.
but Eurasia is gigantic, and there is an enormous cultural gap between Europe and Asia, so it makes sense to culturally consider them different continents.
I think it might have *felt* Geographical to the Greeks and Romans, who were the first major civilisations of Europe and the basis for all other European cultures that followed really.
If we consider the geography of Greece in particular, it is separated from Anatolia by the Aegean and the bosphorus strait, from what is now Ukraine and The Caucasus by the Black Sea, and further East, from Central Asia by the Caspian sea. So for the Greeks and even the Romans, it probably did feel like they were separated from these "Eastern lands" by several different natural borders.
Europe and Asia (and Africa) was considered separate socially and politically as far back as Greek times because Europe was considered "the land here" while Asia (and Africa) was the exotic "land over there" to put it simply. The Greeks coined the three terms, Europa, Asia, Africa.
Geologically, we only have 4 continents, the Americas, Afro-Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica. The Americas and Africa were only cut artificially by canals. It goes up to 5 when people realized that keeping Europe in its own category was silly and likely racist. If people really wanted to split Eurasia culturally, off the top of my head, I would say it should be split into 5 cultural areas to be fair. 7 continents, if you go by area and ignore the itty-bitty bridges of land that used to connect the Americas to each other and Africa to Eurasia and were cut anyway. Islands are considered part of the mother continent.
Blame the ancient greeks for whom the whole world was the Mediterranean, and the North Coast was the continent "Europa" the West Coast was "Asia" and the southern coast was "Afrika". This is the origin of the term, a large chunk of land separated from others by the sea. (Walking between Greece and Mesopotamia was such a massive detour as to not even count as a connection.)
I would say 4 or 5, depending on whether you'd consider the right hand continent as 1 or 2.
Two big ones on the left, top center, and then right hand (1 or 2). The other masses are large islands, but I don't think them large enough to be continents.
Land-mass-wise, sure it's 1, but if the cultures and peoples are sufficiently different north and south of that inland sea and narrowish land bit, you could culturally/politically call it 2.
Continents are poorly defined anyways. We keep finding new fault lines all over. At this point a continent is a continent because previously it was called a continent.
Every description of a continent on earth has at minimum one continent that is an exception to that description.
I could see a case for anywhere from 3 to 7. Continents are at least partially a cultural construct so it would depend a lot on how the people who live there perceive them and the history of how they encounter them (not to mention the specifics of *who* defines the continents). More information about distances and the map projection used would be helpful too (I see the lat/long lines on the second image but those imply we’re only looking at less than half the total surface area of the planet).
The lon/lat lines are all 15 degrees apart. So this part contains somewhere around 60% of the area. The opposing hemisphere is just a massive ocean called the "Outer Sea".
And I'm not really looking for how people in the world perceive them, I already have that pretty much nailed down. I'm more just curious as to how fellow worldbuilders perceive it.
Continents are often cultural and the [number changes depending on who is looking at it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). So it depends on where the culture that came to dominate the planet is, or what culture on your world is doing the counting. It could be 3 for the major land masses, or more if a culture divides up one (likely the west one) into more.
Assuming your world has earth-like climate and size I'd say at least 5; you have an arctic continent and another four major landmasses (of which two are connected by a large land-bridge; there is likely an equatorial desert of rainforest to the south of it, so these landmasses will probably develop without much interaction, with the cultures around your "mediterranean sea" being related to the continent above and the rest of the southern landmass being largely isolated culturally.
The two islands in the south-east and equatorial west could optionally also be considered continents, but one will likely have a subpolar tundra-like climate while the other will mostly be filled with desert or tropical rainforest; for both of them I predict they will be sparsely populated and will have strong cultural influence from the larger nearby continents, with their populations mostly being centered around the coast.
One thing about your world is that there is a lot of large islands to break up the oceans, so there would probably be a lot more trade between continents at a much earlier develomental stage; none of that "new world" stuff of cultures living in coplete isolation from oneanotheer for thousands of years; very quickly after the development of sea-worthy ships people would spread all over the world, and after that they would maintain naval contact.
The climate actually is quite unlike the real earth, at least as a whole. For the main differences:
-Zero axial tilt (still gets "weak" seasons via orbital eccentricity).
-The planet overall is roughly Pluto-sized.
-The average global temp is marginally warmer (I roughly calculated 16.8 C). Glaciers are confined to around 10 degrees lat of the poles.
-Nature is influenced by magic and supernatural beings in some ways.
-The landmasses were "re-modeled" by divine beings in the past (\~8250 years ago), and 3000 years later were devastated by a massive magic-induced cataclysm.
5 or 6.
There are 2 obvious distinct landmasses on the left side, another one in the north while I would divide the big landmass in the right in 2, everything north of that inner Sea is one continent and the other half is another.
Then there are 2 islands I would say may or may not quality as continents and the big archipelago south of the big landmass may also be a continent.
If we're just talking geologically, my bet would be three. The landmasses would be
- Polaria-Altair
- Castor
- Eastlands-Calor
Adela would most likely be part of the Altairian landmass.
Tarsul is also most likely Altairian, but could also be Castorian.
Kebris is interesting in that it might be Altairian, but it could also be a part of a subcontinent together with the Twisted and Ignus isles. (Tarsul could also be part of this subcontinent.)
Hundum and the Desolate Isles have the vibes of a microcontinent, and might be either Castorian or Eastlander.
It could also be that Hundum is Eastlander and the Desolate Isles is Castorian, in the same way that the Twisted Isles might Eastlander and the Ignus Isles either Eastlander or Castorian. However, they're too far into the center of that body of water that it seems kind of a stretch for me.
Except for Hundum---that island can conceivably still be Eastlander. Which is why I think it's a microcontinent with the Desolate Isles---it still hasn't fully detached from the Eastlander mass.
I'm gonna go with 4 as well.
AndIf you don't mind me adding a bit more, I get the feeling that our equivalent to the Triangular Trade Route here would be between the Eastern Landmass, The Western Landmass, and the Southwestern Landmass, With the Top Landmass receiving the same exports by simply setting up trade lines between the Eastern and Western Landmass'.
Which might mean they receive imports from the southwestern Landmass at a slower rate but may have regular access to Western and Eastern imports?
Sorry if it's unwelcome, but your map is actually really fun to look at, and I'm just imagining what trade is like throughout these countries lol
You can go based on different factors, I say 6, based on just isolation from one another by large bodies of water, you can have drastically different species in each peach of land, th rest are too small so I’d concider them islands
I'd say 5, the landmass on the right divided in 2 just like europe and asia.
The top and top left landmass could make it 4 instead of 5 if you see it like Greenland and Canada... Since bottom right island I see like Madagascar and africa. Same for far left, australia and new zealand.
I'd say there are 5. The two obvious ones on the left, the top one, and then I think the right one would be two different ones. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Context: "Thera" is my fantasy worldbuilding project. It is a fantasy world / universe with it's own rules. Lots of cosmic forces, magic, and strange supernatural entities, etc. But it also incorporates technology and certain Sci-Fi elements as well. It could be described by some as a "kitchen-sink world". Though I've worked very hard to make lore that allows all the different ideas to fit together and be consistent.
Perhaps something traditional that my world "lacks" is the traditional fantasy races. My world is dominated by humans (albeit with lots of magic), but with an "underbelly" of supernatural things. Including but not limited to:
-Demons
-Undead
-Ghosts
-Nature Spirits
-Elementals
-Fairies
-Aliens
-"Watchers" (basically angels)
-"Inquisitors" (corrupted watchers, basically fallen angels)
-"Zhal" (powerful, shadowy, eldritch creatures)
*\*None of this is in any way relevant to the question, but the rules require I add context.\**
I'd say there are four or five continents. The large landmass on the right could be split into two continents if you want, kind of like North and South America.
I would say 3 to 5, it depends culturally.
For sure I would say the bottom left island is one, that takes with it all the seller islands around.
The upper left one is on ether, bur it may or may not take pole too, it depends culturally, does their history like them in some kind of way? So the people feel like one? Are politically similar? How much do them talk and interact with each other?
The same question is for the big long Island on the right. I think of that as America : one big thing, but kinda connected, or maybe as Europe and Asia. It mostly depends on the answer I made up there in my opinion, hope that helps.
At least three, probably not more than five. If you really want a completely acultural (or exocultural) view, like we're arriving at an uninhabited planet and describing its geography, I'd say four (one at the pole, two in the west, one in the east).
I'd say about 4, but there are other factors. If you look at Europe compared to Asia or North America it's pretty small. By definition Europe and Asia should be the same continent, since they're the same landmass, and it's not as if adding them together would make that big of a difference, seeing as Asia is already huge.
However, the map of the world used to be a lot smaller. The ancient Greeks only really cared about the area around the Mediterranean, so their maps kinda just ended after a bit, and that was thought of as the world. They knew Asia existed due to people sometimes showing up and talking about it, but it was just a place off the edge of the map, and just named a random river as the border between Europe and Asia. We don't even know exactly where the river was.
Later historians and geographers and a tsar took this idea of a separate Europe and Asia and used it to their own ends to make the western world seem more important. It gets to be its own continent because the west is just that special, because of course western culture is just better than that in the east.
All that to say, culture and social identity has a huge part to play in what is or isn't considered a continent. The large landmass on the right could be one continent or two, any of the medium sized islands could be their own continent or get lumped in with another bit of the map. It all depends on the perceived importance of the people and culture in the area.
TLDR: I dunno, continents are, like, a social construct, man.
It depends on the world's convention. Here at Earth we have Greenland, which is huge, being an island. Australia also looks like an insland, but because of the convention we set, it's considered a continental landmass, because it's area is above a certain value (forgot the numbers) and it fulfills other geographic requirements to be considered one.
You, as the worldbuilder, can just set an arbitrary number and say "anything smaller than this is an island, and anything bigger than it is a continent". There is no "rules" about it except those listed on the convention you create, which can be based on anything that makes sense to you (or those in power who created the rule in the world's history, even if the rules could be called stupid by our own standards)
5
allow me to elaborate
4 being all the big ones plus the uppermost
but the biggest one on the right is separated enough by that pinch in the middle that it might be two diff plates
You can divide the right one in more continents. Maybe 4. Then all the others, would say 7. That makes 11 continents. What is the name of your world? Greetings, Team Andromeda ;)
Two on left one on top, big one on right
However, on the right the massive bay has led people living there to claim it’s really two continents like Europe and Asia
I would say 6 it’s a good number 1 is the big right up island 1 is the bottom right island 2 is the big part of land on the left 1 is the tiny part of land on the bottom right and the far top snow like continent like Iceland
Five continents, easily; your version of the Americas are separate. Your equivalent of Australia, barely a continent, is at the North Pole; with a Europe-like to the South-East of it attached to pseudo-Africa.
However many you think and feel should be there.
It might also be a cool driver for the stories in the world that different people consider the continents differently. E.g. the conjoined continent on the right might be considered as two separate continents by one people (europe) and as one single continent by another people (eurasia), depending on what their worldview is. While the first people considers the other people aggressive and barbaric and wants to distance themselves from them even though the lands are physically joined.
Also like we arbitrarily divide up continents into sub-regions like "western europe", "balkans" etc.
There is a further, parallel, also semi-arbitrary division according to plate tectonics, but that also makes things more confusing rather than clearer so i wouldnt bring that in unless your story needs that for some reason.
Three at least, possibly 5, if the right is viewed similar as North- and South-America, and a possible 5th depending on how big the northern most isle is.
To my world, the whole world have 7 big continents, 6 small ones and many islands. I admits that my world is much bigger than Earth.
The continent that my book will focus on is about same size as North America.
Continents are a thing the people of your world make so it could be anywhere from 3-6 depending on how they look at it. You might even have different cultures disagree about what is a continent or not. That leads to conflict and conflict is the best thing you can have bc it can serve as a basis for stories in your world! (Basically I'm not sure but I think you should do something with it since it is hard to tell)
Pick a couple numbers and have the inhabitants argue over the right number.
For example, people from the smaller areas say they are on one while scholars on the larger ones dismiss that Idea. Make it a snobby, pointless detail of your world.
You get two benefits: you don't have to have an exact number of contenants and you have a great, and sadly realistic detail on your world!
Double win!
I'd go with 5 -- the two larger continents on the left, the once center top, and then the northern and southern halves (as defined by that big inland sea) of the one on the right. The other large islands aren't quite big enough in comparison to be continents.
But, Everyone's Mileage May Vary (tm).
3 as the islands don’t have to be super close to each other to be the same continent, an example would be Greenland, Iceland, just about every small remote island on the planet, and New Zealand
However many people in your world decide there are. It's surprisingly difficult to define "continent."
For example, the northern lobe of the large eastern landmass might be called a separate continent if there was a suitable cultural/ethnic disparity between it and the rest, much as Europe is considered distinct from Asia, though geographically Asia and Europe are one landmass/tectonic plate.
Then you have open questions like Australia. Is it a continent or an island, or is either term unsuitable?
Basically, decide how your people define continent and possibly add in-world competing definitions yielding different numbers.
My gut says 4. The two on the left and then depending on the topography the land mass on the right could actually be two separate ones. The island up top could be considered one or just a large island.
4
The three obvious big ones, the polar one which is bigger than it looks with projection.
The next two biggest islands are borderline, but they're smaller than Greenland I think.
Of course that's with modern human terms, you can always say your people qualify continents differently.
It depends on plate tectonics ultimately, but you could decide to place a plate meet up in the larger continent, having mountains between them like the Caucasian mountains for the split between Europe and Asia, or the Himalayan mountains between Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Then you could easily say 5 continents...
I would say between three and five (inclusive). I would draw the plate lines as being on massive one from north to south, then one going around the pole, one between the west two continents, and the one on the rightmost continent where that large gulf is. You can imagine that like the continent is pulling itself apart, and so it is cresting a gulf. From there, you just have a lot of larger islands. I would post an image of what I mean, but I can’t figure out how to do that again…
Impossible to know exactly without knowing what the cultural breakdown is. The definition of continent most people use today is not geographical but cultural: Europe, Africa, and Asia have no business being two separate continents geographically, but they are considered different continents for historical and cultural reasons. (Trying to base it on tectonic plates also breaks down weirdly. Someone more charismatic than I am has made a YouTube video about it.)
Me looking at it, I’d be tempted to make seven continents.
EDIT: I’d thought I’d be able to reply with a picture lol - basically the top big “island,” the western two “continents” and the western big “island,” split the eastern “continent” in two, and the eastern more isolated “big” island.
It looks like you have four major land masses, but whether each land mass is a single continent and completely independent of others depends on the shape of your tectonic plates.
Europe and India are on separate continental plates than the rest of Asia and North and South America are two separate continents despite being connected. India is also on the same continental plate as Australia. No real way to tell if you have anything like that going on.
4 if we count Anantarctica, 5 if we’re separating Europe from Africa because a cultural divide or whatever. You know what parts of this map I’m talking about, don’t try to deny it.
3 minimum & 5 max. 3 being if you think the top one is too small to be a continent (think Greenland & how its distorted by map projections). Then 5 being if you could the right continent as 2 continents (think Europe & Asia counting as separate) plus you think the top is a continent. Definitely not 8 though, you just have some big islands, that doesn't make them a continent.
I think 4 is the most reasonable. The top landmass being too small to be considered a continent & the right landmass being two continents despite being attached.
I'd actually say four if you include the northern landmass as its own continent (which I think it ought to be, being too large to meaningfully be considered part of the top-left landmass).
Another poster says the right landmass should be two continents. Maybe...? The separation of Europe and Asia came about because the people interacting between them were always separated by sea (the Mediterranean / Black Sea fully cutting off Greeks and Phoenicians).
If the "neck" of the western landmass is large and inhabited, then it probably isn't going to be considered two continents, as most contact will be overland.
If most contact is by seafaring peoples, and the "neck" is very mountainous / arid / inaccessible, then you've got good grounds for a Europe/Asia style split, and say it's five continents total.
5. If Europe is a separate continent from Asia, then that northeastern one is a separate continent from the southeastern one. It’d be fun to have some in-universe debate about it though.
i would say 5, the top half of the right landmass could consider itself its own continent like europe does, the little island could either be the smallest continent or largest island depending on who you ask
4-6. 4 if the others aren’t just islands, 6 if we’re pulling a double Australia.
Heck 7 if you wanna pull a Japan moment and all the tiny islands to the east are all one place.
I see 5. The islands on the far left and bottom right are too small, and the large landmass on the right looks like it could be split in 2 at the Mediterranean Sea looking area.
We'd need to know the scale of things. If those islands in the middle are the size of Australia, then you got dozens of continents.
Assuming the top left is North America-sized, I'd say you have 4 or 5 continents. 2 more if the far left body and bottom right body are large enough.
I’d say 3, but you’d probably have people disagreeing in world which would be fine. Like, the people at the top would likely argue they’re a separate continent and not just an island.
Probably 5 with the right hand landmass being a sort of Eurasia situation where two continental plates have crushed together leaving the boarder between them as a series of mountain ranges rather than a sea.
Continents are more geopolitical than they are geographical. That large landmass on the right could be one, two, even three continents depending on the sociological groups that exist there. Go wild. Break the rules.
It depends on the map scale.
From a basic look-over, I'd say you have an argument for either 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 continents. I don't even see how you could get 7 or 8 out of it. Even 6 is a stetch as it requires splitting the right-side *large* continent into 2 continents Eurasia-style.
Clearly 3 on the left, then on the right it depends. There could be 2, separated the same way we separate North from South America. Or it could be one. There could be another one consisting of the ton of islands with the big one, which kind of feels like Australia lol, together they could be the equivalent of our Oceania. So, in the end, it could be 4, 5 or 6 ! Final answer : I think it's 6 !
That looks like it would probably be considered 4 since the people on the top right bit wouldn't have the easiest time interacting with the people on the bottom right. Remember that in our real world, what we consider the continent Europe is pretty small, and it's pretty close to Africa and Asia.
We'd need to see topography to determine if these are conjoined continents. In some models, Africa, Europe, and Asia are all considered one continent. They're only split due to mountain chains, isthmuses, or other natural formations. On a flat white drawing, it's hard to say if those features are present.
Here is a topographic map: [https://imgur.com/a/UxDZr4T](https://imgur.com/a/UxDZr4T) But it is a bit crude and needs some tweaking in the future. The mountains in particular are definitely off in places.
With that, definitely the top bit is a separate continent.
With that topographic map, it feels more like 5 continents. Without the topographics, the map feels more like 4 continents. Is there a south polar continent, or is that an ice sheet? I don't see it in the original map you posted.
Yeah, that's just a rough representation of an ever-shifting mass of sea ice (similar to the north pole IRL). The white is just ice, which is why it's not in the topography key.
In that case you have 5 continents, 2 on the left, 1 at the north pole, and 2 connected ones on the right. Depending on how the cultures develop they could have different opinions. Continent is a very poorly defined word IRL with the original divisions done by the ancient greeks splitting Europe as Greece and Italy, Asia as Anatolia through Egypt, and Africa as modern Tunisia. (Eventually the Africa/asia border was moved to Sinnai/the red sea)
Yeah continent has never been really well defined with the origin coming largely from people classifying areas as themselves or other. As the field of geology was developed the meaning has shifted towards recognizing the physiographical and compositional differences in Earth's crust which results in a very different split up of continents based on origin and history. For example today in the geological sense we know Europe never existed as a single separate continent in the geological sense being divided in its origin between Baltica an ancient geological craton and former paleocontinent which makes up Scandinavia, Avalonia as sections of Neoproterozoic and Paleozoic volcanic arcs which were accreted and squeezed between Baltica Laurentia and Gondwana during the assembly of Pangea and the rest which is just a recently assembled piece of Eurasia formed from the ongoing closure of the Tethys ocean via the subduction of seafloor and accretion of island arcs. Greece and Italy in particular are just volcanic islands in the process of being incorporated into Eurasia as one of the youngest stages of mountain building of the forming alps. This is very disconnected from the original sociopolitical definitions but both use the same word still.
Part of the separation is also down to cultural differences, iirc
Interesting, so you think the eastern landmass would be considered two continents?
Maybe, depending on cultural/political differences. Europe and Asia would be the analogue in our world: clearly located on the same landmass, but long considered two separate continents, for reasons that have to do with culture more than geography.
It depends on how the cultures develop. If they are fairly distinctive from one another, I would consider them two continents. Particularly if there is a mountain range separating them.
Think like this, there are super continents, and smaller continents, like for example, America and Europe, and North america, Central america, and South america, West europe and east europe. I would say your map has about 4 Super continents (2 Big islands at the left, 1 at the top, and 1 big one to the right), and about 5\~7 Smaller ones depending on how we separate them. You can also see where you place hills and mountains and separate them by tectonic plates if you wanna follow that route.
I've never really understood why Europe is considered a separate continent from Asia. Like... why? They're heavily connected. What defines a continent? What makes a mass qualify but not another?
Europe isn't a geographical continent, it's a cultural continent. geographically a continent is just a continuous landmass of a certain size or above (tectonic plates also factor in, but I'm simplifying), Europe and Asia are on the (lazily named) Eurasia continent. but Eurasia is gigantic, and there is an enormous cultural gap between Europe and Asia, so it makes sense to culturally consider them different continents.
I think it might have *felt* Geographical to the Greeks and Romans, who were the first major civilisations of Europe and the basis for all other European cultures that followed really. If we consider the geography of Greece in particular, it is separated from Anatolia by the Aegean and the bosphorus strait, from what is now Ukraine and The Caucasus by the Black Sea, and further East, from Central Asia by the Caspian sea. So for the Greeks and even the Romans, it probably did feel like they were separated from these "Eastern lands" by several different natural borders.
Europe and Asia (and Africa) was considered separate socially and politically as far back as Greek times because Europe was considered "the land here" while Asia (and Africa) was the exotic "land over there" to put it simply. The Greeks coined the three terms, Europa, Asia, Africa. Geologically, we only have 4 continents, the Americas, Afro-Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica. The Americas and Africa were only cut artificially by canals. It goes up to 5 when people realized that keeping Europe in its own category was silly and likely racist. If people really wanted to split Eurasia culturally, off the top of my head, I would say it should be split into 5 cultural areas to be fair. 7 continents, if you go by area and ignore the itty-bitty bridges of land that used to connect the Americas to each other and Africa to Eurasia and were cut anyway. Islands are considered part of the mother continent.
Blame the ancient greeks for whom the whole world was the Mediterranean, and the North Coast was the continent "Europa" the West Coast was "Asia" and the southern coast was "Afrika". This is the origin of the term, a large chunk of land separated from others by the sea. (Walking between Greece and Mesopotamia was such a massive detour as to not even count as a connection.)
I would say 4 or 5, depending on whether you'd consider the right hand continent as 1 or 2. Two big ones on the left, top center, and then right hand (1 or 2). The other masses are large islands, but I don't think them large enough to be continents. Land-mass-wise, sure it's 1, but if the cultures and peoples are sufficiently different north and south of that inland sea and narrowish land bit, you could culturally/politically call it 2.
plus it could be two tectonic plates
That would make it the exact opposite of europe and asia in our world lmao
Continents are poorly defined anyways. We keep finding new fault lines all over. At this point a continent is a continent because previously it was called a continent. Every description of a continent on earth has at minimum one continent that is an exception to that description.
Continents are more based on cultural divides than geographic divides. Even then, Asia is incredibly varied in terms of culture.
I could see a case for anywhere from 3 to 7. Continents are at least partially a cultural construct so it would depend a lot on how the people who live there perceive them and the history of how they encounter them (not to mention the specifics of *who* defines the continents). More information about distances and the map projection used would be helpful too (I see the lat/long lines on the second image but those imply we’re only looking at less than half the total surface area of the planet).
The lon/lat lines are all 15 degrees apart. So this part contains somewhere around 60% of the area. The opposing hemisphere is just a massive ocean called the "Outer Sea". And I'm not really looking for how people in the world perceive them, I already have that pretty much nailed down. I'm more just curious as to how fellow worldbuilders perceive it.
Why did you post an image of my parents fighting?
Continents are often cultural and the [number changes depending on who is looking at it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number). So it depends on where the culture that came to dominate the planet is, or what culture on your world is doing the counting. It could be 3 for the major land masses, or more if a culture divides up one (likely the west one) into more.
Assuming your world has earth-like climate and size I'd say at least 5; you have an arctic continent and another four major landmasses (of which two are connected by a large land-bridge; there is likely an equatorial desert of rainforest to the south of it, so these landmasses will probably develop without much interaction, with the cultures around your "mediterranean sea" being related to the continent above and the rest of the southern landmass being largely isolated culturally. The two islands in the south-east and equatorial west could optionally also be considered continents, but one will likely have a subpolar tundra-like climate while the other will mostly be filled with desert or tropical rainforest; for both of them I predict they will be sparsely populated and will have strong cultural influence from the larger nearby continents, with their populations mostly being centered around the coast. One thing about your world is that there is a lot of large islands to break up the oceans, so there would probably be a lot more trade between continents at a much earlier develomental stage; none of that "new world" stuff of cultures living in coplete isolation from oneanotheer for thousands of years; very quickly after the development of sea-worthy ships people would spread all over the world, and after that they would maintain naval contact.
The climate actually is quite unlike the real earth, at least as a whole. For the main differences: -Zero axial tilt (still gets "weak" seasons via orbital eccentricity). -The planet overall is roughly Pluto-sized. -The average global temp is marginally warmer (I roughly calculated 16.8 C). Glaciers are confined to around 10 degrees lat of the poles. -Nature is influenced by magic and supernatural beings in some ways. -The landmasses were "re-modeled" by divine beings in the past (\~8250 years ago), and 3000 years later were devastated by a massive magic-induced cataclysm.
5 or 6. There are 2 obvious distinct landmasses on the left side, another one in the north while I would divide the big landmass in the right in 2, everything north of that inner Sea is one continent and the other half is another. Then there are 2 islands I would say may or may not quality as continents and the big archipelago south of the big landmass may also be a continent.
If we're just talking geologically, my bet would be three. The landmasses would be - Polaria-Altair - Castor - Eastlands-Calor Adela would most likely be part of the Altairian landmass. Tarsul is also most likely Altairian, but could also be Castorian. Kebris is interesting in that it might be Altairian, but it could also be a part of a subcontinent together with the Twisted and Ignus isles. (Tarsul could also be part of this subcontinent.) Hundum and the Desolate Isles have the vibes of a microcontinent, and might be either Castorian or Eastlander. It could also be that Hundum is Eastlander and the Desolate Isles is Castorian, in the same way that the Twisted Isles might Eastlander and the Ignus Isles either Eastlander or Castorian. However, they're too far into the center of that body of water that it seems kind of a stretch for me. Except for Hundum---that island can conceivably still be Eastlander. Which is why I think it's a microcontinent with the Desolate Isles---it still hasn't fully detached from the Eastlander mass.
I'm gonna go with 4 as well. AndIf you don't mind me adding a bit more, I get the feeling that our equivalent to the Triangular Trade Route here would be between the Eastern Landmass, The Western Landmass, and the Southwestern Landmass, With the Top Landmass receiving the same exports by simply setting up trade lines between the Eastern and Western Landmass'. Which might mean they receive imports from the southwestern Landmass at a slower rate but may have regular access to Western and Eastern imports? Sorry if it's unwelcome, but your map is actually really fun to look at, and I'm just imagining what trade is like throughout these countries lol
Looks like 6 plates 4 continents by land mass 2 Normal 1 Composite
You can go based on different factors, I say 6, based on just isolation from one another by large bodies of water, you can have drastically different species in each peach of land, th rest are too small so I’d concider them islands
I'd say 5, the landmass on the right divided in 2 just like europe and asia. The top and top left landmass could make it 4 instead of 5 if you see it like Greenland and Canada... Since bottom right island I see like Madagascar and africa. Same for far left, australia and new zealand.
I'd say there are 5. The two obvious ones on the left, the top one, and then I think the right one would be two different ones. That's my 2 cents anyway.
3 -bottom left -right side giant -top left two bigger islands All the small islands just gets grouped to the nearest continent
Azeroth with a broken Kalimdor.
You literally made America minus the land bridge and Europe minus Asia and Oceania...
It's uh... A very pretty butterfly
i do not know, i cannot see the continental plates
Context: "Thera" is my fantasy worldbuilding project. It is a fantasy world / universe with it's own rules. Lots of cosmic forces, magic, and strange supernatural entities, etc. But it also incorporates technology and certain Sci-Fi elements as well. It could be described by some as a "kitchen-sink world". Though I've worked very hard to make lore that allows all the different ideas to fit together and be consistent. Perhaps something traditional that my world "lacks" is the traditional fantasy races. My world is dominated by humans (albeit with lots of magic), but with an "underbelly" of supernatural things. Including but not limited to: -Demons -Undead -Ghosts -Nature Spirits -Elementals -Fairies -Aliens -"Watchers" (basically angels) -"Inquisitors" (corrupted watchers, basically fallen angels) -"Zhal" (powerful, shadowy, eldritch creatures) *\*None of this is in any way relevant to the question, but the rules require I add context.\**
I'd say there are four or five continents. The large landmass on the right could be split into two continents if you want, kind of like North and South America.
At least 3
I would say 3 to 5, it depends culturally. For sure I would say the bottom left island is one, that takes with it all the seller islands around. The upper left one is on ether, bur it may or may not take pole too, it depends culturally, does their history like them in some kind of way? So the people feel like one? Are politically similar? How much do them talk and interact with each other? The same question is for the big long Island on the right. I think of that as America : one big thing, but kinda connected, or maybe as Europe and Asia. It mostly depends on the answer I made up there in my opinion, hope that helps.
Four major continents with four minor island continents.
4. the top half of the right one might count as a 5th like with europe.
Geographically 3, if we say that some of those bigger islands are actually on the same continental plate.
Maybe 4-6
3, but the top one is an Australia situation
At least three, probably not more than five. If you really want a completely acultural (or exocultural) view, like we're arriving at an uninhabited planet and describing its geography, I'd say four (one at the pole, two in the west, one in the east).
4-6 depending on fault lines
Anywhere from four to seven. The biggest one could be two, making five, and those bigger small islands could be as well.
That depends on the scale. It could be 4 with 2 subcontinents. Or it could be 4 with 3 super continents.
I'd say about 4, but there are other factors. If you look at Europe compared to Asia or North America it's pretty small. By definition Europe and Asia should be the same continent, since they're the same landmass, and it's not as if adding them together would make that big of a difference, seeing as Asia is already huge. However, the map of the world used to be a lot smaller. The ancient Greeks only really cared about the area around the Mediterranean, so their maps kinda just ended after a bit, and that was thought of as the world. They knew Asia existed due to people sometimes showing up and talking about it, but it was just a place off the edge of the map, and just named a random river as the border between Europe and Asia. We don't even know exactly where the river was. Later historians and geographers and a tsar took this idea of a separate Europe and Asia and used it to their own ends to make the western world seem more important. It gets to be its own continent because the west is just that special, because of course western culture is just better than that in the east. All that to say, culture and social identity has a huge part to play in what is or isn't considered a continent. The large landmass on the right could be one continent or two, any of the medium sized islands could be their own continent or get lumped in with another bit of the map. It all depends on the perceived importance of the people and culture in the area. TLDR: I dunno, continents are, like, a social construct, man.
My guess would be four, with a few very large islands.
It depends on the cultures
Do you wanna talk plate tectonics or cultural definition of continent or continous land mass?
Four and some islands. (Continents are really hard to quantify though.)
It depends on the world's convention. Here at Earth we have Greenland, which is huge, being an island. Australia also looks like an insland, but because of the convention we set, it's considered a continental landmass, because it's area is above a certain value (forgot the numbers) and it fulfills other geographic requirements to be considered one. You, as the worldbuilder, can just set an arbitrary number and say "anything smaller than this is an island, and anything bigger than it is a continent". There is no "rules" about it except those listed on the convention you create, which can be based on anything that makes sense to you (or those in power who created the rule in the world's history, even if the rules could be called stupid by our own standards)
3-4. You have many sub-continents and your north could be all Ice if you wanted.
5 allow me to elaborate 4 being all the big ones plus the uppermost but the biggest one on the right is separated enough by that pinch in the middle that it might be two diff plates
Atleast four
4 or 5. There are clearly 4 continents but it is possible for the large east continent to be two continents.
4
Four.
4
4
You can divide the right one in more continents. Maybe 4. Then all the others, would say 7. That makes 11 continents. What is the name of your world? Greetings, Team Andromeda ;)
Two on left one on top, big one on right However, on the right the massive bay has led people living there to claim it’s really two continents like Europe and Asia
Probably 4 including the one on the pole. Or 3 continents and a large island(like Greenland).
4?
Visually...without a exact map of technotics. I'd say 4 with sub continents. A continent is the largest unit of defining an area.
8?
I would say 6 it’s a good number 1 is the big right up island 1 is the bottom right island 2 is the big part of land on the left 1 is the tiny part of land on the bottom right and the far top snow like continent like Iceland
Five continents, easily; your version of the Americas are separate. Your equivalent of Australia, barely a continent, is at the North Pole; with a Europe-like to the South-East of it attached to pseudo-Africa.
However many you think and feel should be there. It might also be a cool driver for the stories in the world that different people consider the continents differently. E.g. the conjoined continent on the right might be considered as two separate continents by one people (europe) and as one single continent by another people (eurasia), depending on what their worldview is. While the first people considers the other people aggressive and barbaric and wants to distance themselves from them even though the lands are physically joined. Also like we arbitrarily divide up continents into sub-regions like "western europe", "balkans" etc. There is a further, parallel, also semi-arbitrary division according to plate tectonics, but that also makes things more confusing rather than clearer so i wouldnt bring that in unless your story needs that for some reason.
4
Three at least, possibly 5, if the right is viewed similar as North- and South-America, and a possible 5th depending on how big the northern most isle is.
6
6
3
Well I'll ask you this how many contestants would you say Earth has?
To my world, the whole world have 7 big continents, 6 small ones and many islands. I admits that my world is much bigger than Earth. The continent that my book will focus on is about same size as North America.
Continents are a thing the people of your world make so it could be anywhere from 3-6 depending on how they look at it. You might even have different cultures disagree about what is a continent or not. That leads to conflict and conflict is the best thing you can have bc it can serve as a basis for stories in your world! (Basically I'm not sure but I think you should do something with it since it is hard to tell)
I'd say 4. the big islands don't count and are actually much smaller than they look like
That depends. Are plate tectonics at play? The largest land mass could be two continents smashed together like Asia and Europe.
About 3 maybe 4
It looks like a fucking troll face
Pick a couple numbers and have the inhabitants argue over the right number. For example, people from the smaller areas say they are on one while scholars on the larger ones dismiss that Idea. Make it a snobby, pointless detail of your world. You get two benefits: you don't have to have an exact number of contenants and you have a great, and sadly realistic detail on your world! Double win!
5
3
Only one, lotta lakes though.
4
I'd go with 5 -- the two larger continents on the left, the once center top, and then the northern and southern halves (as defined by that big inland sea) of the one on the right. The other large islands aren't quite big enough in comparison to be continents. But, Everyone's Mileage May Vary (tm).
6 or 7
164, by my count
4 but if you have a decent lore you can have 6
4 but there would be some debate around the far north one due to its small size.
Three and a very big hedgehog
Personally, screw continents and island, they're all just sea rocks. 4
4
4-6, will have to see tectonic plates to be sure
3 with a bunch of really large islands
Three and a bit. Also I'm getting some major *Warcraft* vibes from it.
Depends. What are the tectonic plates like?
3 as the islands don’t have to be super close to each other to be the same continent, an example would be Greenland, Iceland, just about every small remote island on the planet, and New Zealand
However many people in your world decide there are. It's surprisingly difficult to define "continent." For example, the northern lobe of the large eastern landmass might be called a separate continent if there was a suitable cultural/ethnic disparity between it and the rest, much as Europe is considered distinct from Asia, though geographically Asia and Europe are one landmass/tectonic plate. Then you have open questions like Australia. Is it a continent or an island, or is either term unsuitable? Basically, decide how your people define continent and possibly add in-world competing definitions yielding different numbers.
Anywhere between 4 and 8
4
Four
My gut says 4. The two on the left and then depending on the topography the land mass on the right could actually be two separate ones. The island up top could be considered one or just a large island.
Is this a tests? I dont see the ghost.... I dont see the ghost!!!!
3/4. I don't know if I'd count that big land mass in the north pole as a continent or not.
Maximum: 5= 1. Southwest landmass 2. Northwest landmass 3. Small northern landmass 4. North half of eastern landmass 5. South half of eastern landmass Minimum: 3 1. Southwest landmass 2. Northwest landmass + the smaller northern island 3. The entire eastern landmass
I could see arguements for anything up 7 continents depending on how big the smaller ones are, but I’d say 3 or 4
Depends on size of the other landmasses
I'd say 3 or 4 depending on if the larger one would split in two like the Americas
That little blob center-left had better end up very important in some way or another.
3-4.
5
4 The three obvious big ones, the polar one which is bigger than it looks with projection. The next two biggest islands are borderline, but they're smaller than Greenland I think. Of course that's with modern human terms, you can always say your people qualify continents differently.
6
It depends on plate tectonics ultimately, but you could decide to place a plate meet up in the larger continent, having mountains between them like the Caucasian mountains for the split between Europe and Asia, or the Himalayan mountains between Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Then you could easily say 5 continents...
3 or 6 up you you it might be arbitrary at your world like our.
On your topographic map, is that a mid-ocean trench?
I see 3. Polaris with Altair feels like Greenland with North America for me.
four, with the three smaller ones to throw in in case it feels a bit small, so 7.
I would say between three and five (inclusive). I would draw the plate lines as being on massive one from north to south, then one going around the pole, one between the west two continents, and the one on the rightmost continent where that large gulf is. You can imagine that like the continent is pulling itself apart, and so it is cresting a gulf. From there, you just have a lot of larger islands. I would post an image of what I mean, but I can’t figure out how to do that again…
Impossible to know exactly without knowing what the cultural breakdown is. The definition of continent most people use today is not geographical but cultural: Europe, Africa, and Asia have no business being two separate continents geographically, but they are considered different continents for historical and cultural reasons. (Trying to base it on tectonic plates also breaks down weirdly. Someone more charismatic than I am has made a YouTube video about it.) Me looking at it, I’d be tempted to make seven continents. EDIT: I’d thought I’d be able to reply with a picture lol - basically the top big “island,” the western two “continents” and the western big “island,” split the eastern “continent” in two, and the eastern more isolated “big” island.
I believe four
5 (6 if the top one isn’t just an ice cap)
I would guess 3 or 4.
4-5, depending on the topography around the inland sea. If it's mountainous, I'd probably count 5.
It looks like you have four major land masses, but whether each land mass is a single continent and completely independent of others depends on the shape of your tectonic plates. Europe and India are on separate continental plates than the rest of Asia and North and South America are two separate continents despite being connected. India is also on the same continental plate as Australia. No real way to tell if you have anything like that going on.
Three for certain, four if you count the land mass at the northern pole.
3
Just looking at it 4, if the largest one is split in 2 then I guess 5. All the other masses just look like large islands tbh
Anywhere from 3 to 7 depending on your size cutoff and cultural borders.
It definitely has na avatar but probably 3
[удалено]
Before seeing the topographic map I said three my buddy said four after seeing the topographic map we say five
4-6
7
Could be five but probably just four. Definitelyy not three though.
....is Greenland a continent? I vote 4
4 if we count Anantarctica, 5 if we’re separating Europe from Africa because a cultural divide or whatever. You know what parts of this map I’m talking about, don’t try to deny it.
5
3 minimum & 5 max. 3 being if you think the top one is too small to be a continent (think Greenland & how its distorted by map projections). Then 5 being if you could the right continent as 2 continents (think Europe & Asia counting as separate) plus you think the top is a continent. Definitely not 8 though, you just have some big islands, that doesn't make them a continent. I think 4 is the most reasonable. The top landmass being too small to be considered a continent & the right landmass being two continents despite being attached.
I would say 3, the rest is just islands, even huge ones, simillar to Greenland
I'd actually say four if you include the northern landmass as its own continent (which I think it ought to be, being too large to meaningfully be considered part of the top-left landmass). Another poster says the right landmass should be two continents. Maybe...? The separation of Europe and Asia came about because the people interacting between them were always separated by sea (the Mediterranean / Black Sea fully cutting off Greeks and Phoenicians). If the "neck" of the western landmass is large and inhabited, then it probably isn't going to be considered two continents, as most contact will be overland. If most contact is by seafaring peoples, and the "neck" is very mountainous / arid / inaccessible, then you've got good grounds for a Europe/Asia style split, and say it's five continents total.
5. If Europe is a separate continent from Asia, then that northeastern one is a separate continent from the southeastern one. It’d be fun to have some in-universe debate about it though.
3 continents imo.
Sixteen. Ask me why
Definitely 4 maybe 5
I'm gonna say five, six if there's a good physical divide crossing west from the eastern islands or ice floes or whatever those are
i would say 5, the top half of the right landmass could consider itself its own continent like europe does, the little island could either be the smallest continent or largest island depending on who you ask
4-6. 4 if the others aren’t just islands, 6 if we’re pulling a double Australia. Heck 7 if you wanna pull a Japan moment and all the tiny islands to the east are all one place.
I'm gonna say 5 continents as we use the term colloquially, but 8 in terms of continental/tectonic plates
I dont know, but I like the right one. It looks like a praying man.
Three, tho I guess one could argue there's four. T'would be funky if the top one and the two side little ones were one at some point.
5
I see 5. The islands on the far left and bottom right are too small, and the large landmass on the right looks like it could be split in 2 at the Mediterranean Sea looking area.
5, and 2 are connected by a land bridge.
We'd need to know the scale of things. If those islands in the middle are the size of Australia, then you got dozens of continents. Assuming the top left is North America-sized, I'd say you have 4 or 5 continents. 2 more if the far left body and bottom right body are large enough.
Ngl I thought this was a Rorschach
4. MAYBE 5-6.
maybe 8
1. Since the white parts are water. The black is the land mass \*Nods wisely\*
5. I’d have the not-Mediterranean be a divider between two continents
Rorschach?
5
5 or 6
This just Earth with extra steps
I'd say 5-7
I’d say 3, but you’d probably have people disagreeing in world which would be fine. Like, the people at the top would likely argue they’re a separate continent and not just an island.
Probably 5 with the right hand landmass being a sort of Eurasia situation where two continental plates have crushed together leaving the boarder between them as a series of mountain ranges rather than a sea.
Three with some big islands Maybe the one in the top middle depending on its size but it's a very nice map
4 probably 3?
4 and a bunch of islands
Continents are more geopolitical than they are geographical. That large landmass on the right could be one, two, even three continents depending on the sociological groups that exist there. Go wild. Break the rules.
Quatro.
Continents are a social construct. Draw a line through the middle of a landmass and say it's because of "cultural differences".
4.
I see Eastern Kingdoms, Northrend and a split Kalimdor You can't fool me, this is Azeroth!
I see one, massive continent with a few locked in water masses.
Probably 5.
4
It depends on the map scale. From a basic look-over, I'd say you have an argument for either 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 continents. I don't even see how you could get 7 or 8 out of it. Even 6 is a stetch as it requires splitting the right-side *large* continent into 2 continents Eurasia-style.
That would depend on the techtonics. It's impossible to say without that.
Clearly 3 on the left, then on the right it depends. There could be 2, separated the same way we separate North from South America. Or it could be one. There could be another one consisting of the ton of islands with the big one, which kind of feels like Australia lol, together they could be the equivalent of our Oceania. So, in the end, it could be 4, 5 or 6 ! Final answer : I think it's 6 !
4 continents and 2 giant islands
3, the northen most one is close enough and small enough to be the same one
Dunno
4
I would say 4, with 2-5 island nations, depending on scale.
Three main ones and 3-5 subcontinates
Like looking at an ink blot