I was walking between Great Shunner Fell and High Seat a week or two back and the fanatastic view south and west got me thinking. Had anyone asked "are there any mountains in England" before this time I suspect I'd have replied, "Only in the Lake District" - but the views of Wild Boar Fell, Great Coum, Whernside, Ingleborough and Pen-Y-Ghent made me think again. Was it just the hazy views that made them look so mountainous or are they indeed mountains ?

What's your take on what makes a hill a mountain ?

Hills of Scotland, fells of Lakeland and mountains of Wales.

Good question. For me it has to be something to do with mass, so the question becomes when does a hill become a mountain. This reminds me of a question related to chaos theory. I have an apple, I take a bite out of it, is it still an apple? I take another bite and ask the same question. Then repeat. At what point does the apple cease to be an apple?

Also, I wish this site was easier to access from a Blackberry!

Two interesting answers with very different approaches.
Fellraven's answer highlights the aspect of convention - the usage of terminology as a defining factor in itself - yet this doesn't really fit all that well for me - clearly the Grampians and the North-West Highlands, match and often exceed the Welsh mountains in height and certainly match them in mass and ruggedness - indeed many Lakeland fells fall short in this only in outright height. My Dad was taught in school that any peak over 600 feet above sea-level was a mountain. As Dad pointed out that made his nearby Ravenscar sea-cliff (South Cheek) - a mountain and would also have elevated (sorry!) the top of Garrowby bank in the Yorkshire Wolds to the status of a mountain. Dad found this to be silly even as a child and it also reminds me of the film 'The man who climbed a hill and came down a mountain' (or some such title) wherein a group of locals build an enormous mound atop a hill in order for it to be classed as a mountain. Clearly naming convention suits some as a defination but what of others?

Mark's answer for me comes closer - the mass - the presence I suppose - of a hill can for me suggest near mountain status, however on this same walk when certain peaks appeared as mountains neither Great Shunner, High Seat nor even Cross Fell gave this impression. For me an element of character, of ruggedness, comes into play, and I suppose wildness, remoteness too, although I can't say why this last should be so.
Mark also highlights the sliding scale aspect too and this would apply to my notion of ruggedness (although not the Fellraven's convention approach). How rugged is rugged enough ? How high is high enough ?

I've had a change of mind. Perhaps one man's mountain is another man's hill. On a global scale even our seven illustrious peaks over 4'000 foot are relatively small. Though perhaps made all the more dramatic with their relative proximity to sea. (Though having just checked some facts and figures on New Zealand - I think a lot of people would view our mountains as hills.)

We all like the outdoors on this site. We all get out and about exploring the higher reaches of our small island. Are we hillwalkers or mountaineers? I for one refer to the mountains of Scotland, but would refer to myself as someone who enjoys hillwalking. - Even if that requires an ice-axe and crampons at times.

Mark

I think I'll stick to the notion that anything over 2,000ft (609m), with 50ft drop all round, is a mountain, at least in the UK. Most tops over that height do seem to have their own personalities, although there are a few rather bland ones --and some 1,800ft ones are very interesting. But any definition of "mountain" is going to be arbitrary to some degree, and the 2,000ft one seems as good as any to me.

I don't suppose for a moment that there is a clear and set definition of a mountain but it's interesting to hear what different folk see or perceive a mountain to be. Guy and Mark both highlight the fairly clear fact that what makes a mountain in the UK might not apply elsewhere, given relative heights of 'mountains' in different countries. I suppose this leads back, to a degree, to the aspect, the look and feel of the peak.

The problems of splitting a mountain range into separate mountains, with all the different criteria applied to different levels - munros, corbetts, grahams, marilyns, hewitts etc - can only underline the reality that there is no clear-cut definition - so what of those personal definitions - other than the obvious one of heght ? What of physical character, climate etc ?