The Missouri River

Gulfecho

Gulfecho

Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
700
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Let's rename the Missouri river for where she originates; conceived from the clear head waters formed by the Gallatin, Madisen and Jefferson rivers in South Western Montana, all named by Lewis and Clark, the "Great Western Montana River", not some cheese knock off from Missouri.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I used to fish Three Forks, the head waters of the Missouri, nice area.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk
 
What I never understood, being a furriner, is. How do you really know wich one is really the afluent, the Mississipi or the Missouri.:confused:
 
It was called the Missouri well before the head waters were even found by Europeans. Here's some history on the subject;

Missouri got its name from a Sioux Tribe called the Missouria who lived along the Missouri River and have a rich history in the river valley.
 
The mighty MO stretches 2,341 miles, which is just 20 miles longer than the Mississippi. Even though it is longer by just a little bit, the Missouri is considered the tributary to the Mississippi.
 
Gulfecho said:
The mighty MO stretches 2,341 miles, which is just 20 miles longer than the Mississippi. Even though it is longer by just a little bit, the Missouri is considered the tributary to the Mississippi.
Click to expand...

That much I know. I just don't know why.:D

Well, I do have a theory. Both names are native names. Given by the people who lived by the river (rivers) but didn't really knew where the river came from or where it was going to. The first Europeans there got the names from the natives, it was only much later they found out the full lenght of those bodies of water. And by then the names were already accepted.
 
Kurusu said:
What I never understood, being a furriner, is. How do you really know wich one is really the afluent, the Mississipi or the Missouri.:confused:
Click to expand...


The most logical reason I can give you is that at the confluence the Mississippi has a significantly higher flow rate, and is significantly wider than the Missouri. The "smaller" river is usually considered as being "tributary" to the larger river.


The same argument could be made for the Ohio at it's confluence with the Mississippi just below Cairo, IL, except the Ohio is the larger of the two rivers at that point and logically the river should have been the Ohio from that point downstream.


FWIW I have always felt that the Missouri is the name the Mississippi should have had, although the Ohio probably has a stronger argument in it's favor.
 
Last edited:
Gulfecho said:
The mighty MO stretches 2,341 miles, which is just 20 miles longer than the Mississippi. Even though it is longer by just a little bit, the Missouri is considered the tributary to the Mississippi.
Click to expand...

Kurusu said:
That much I know. I just don't know why.:D

Well, I do have a theory.....
Click to expand...

You may be overthinking this :)

Geographers have always considered a tributary to be the river that terminated by flowing into another river.

Regardless of the names, looking at a picture of the confluence of the two rivers, it would have been obvious, even back then without the benefit of aerial photography, which river flowed into which and was the tributary here.
 

Attachments

  • B053E8E2-FDE6-48A6-80C6-8F1E6F7121E5.jpg
    B053E8E2-FDE6-48A6-80C6-8F1E6F7121E5.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 55
Absalom said:
You may be overthinking this :)

Geographers have always considered a tributary to be the river that terminated by flowing into another river.

Regardless of the names, looking at a picture of the confluence of the two rivers, it would have been obvious, even back then without the benefit of aerial photography, which river flowed into which and was the tributary here.
Click to expand...

Considering "Old Muddy" is not exactly a "straight arrow". I wouldn't be so sure.:D

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 04.jpg
    04.jpg
    185.6 KB · Views: 377
I think there's a Canadian River which flows through Oklahoma and Texas IIRC. Somebody could complain about the name of that one...too.
 
...muddy Mississippi left...busy Ohio right...we have spent the night in our camper in the campground at the confluence a couple of times...

maxresdefault.jpg


At the confluence the the Ohio river is considerably bigger than the Mississippi (volume flow rate 7,960 m³/s vs 5,897 m³/s), indeed it appears as the larger river. This evidence led us to the first question: why is the river called Mississippi even though the Ohio tributary has a larger outflow at the confluence? Despite being the mass/volume flow rate one of the criteria that could be used to define a main stream and a tributary in this case the Mississippi is longer than the Ohio river at the confluence (2,000 km vs 1,579 km), so this is probably one of the reason why the main river is still considered the Mississippi. The river length is indeed one of the main criteria used to define a main steam, together with the drainage basin area.

Anyway, going upstream the Mississippi flow, we face the reverse situation reaching another critical point of this river system: the confluence with the Missouri river in St Louis (Missouri State). The Mississippi looks bigger in terms of flow rate (5,796 m³/s vs 2,445 m³/s) whereas the Missouri is longer than the Mississippi itself (3,767 km vs almost 2000 km). That’s the opposite of the Cairo’s case where the Ohio played the part of the richer but shorter river.

Then the question: why is the Mississippi considered the main river despite the Missouri is longer than the first one and so having a drainage water basin three times larger? Length, mass, drainage area, distance from the sea, angle of impact are all criteria used to define a main stream, with the first one as the common used. But cultural and historical traditions are dominant over geographical theory and this could be the case. Indeed Mississippi is very deep-rooted in many histories and legends of the american and Indian native culture since the first settlements and explorations. When the first cartographers and explorers reached the confluence the Missouri’s source was probably still unknown and hided in the Far West, just like its major length and its right to be considered the main stream of the river system.
 
Last edited:
I do believe the naming is entirely cultural/historical.

All the comparative information given so far pertaining to accurate length, drainage area, water flow etc. was not available for some centuries after the Spanish in the 1500s and then the French in the 1600s first explored the Mississippi and established it as a known geographical feature for Europeans, long before the Missouri, so I don’t think there was ever a chance for anyone to sit down and say “Well, let’s look at all the data and decide which river REALLY deserves to be top dog.” :)

Take in contrast the Nile. There is no simple “Nile” above the confluence of the White Nile and the Blue Nile at Khartoum; both are considered tributaries which join together co-equal to form the Nile that flows on through Egypt. The reason is almost certainly that both were explored about the same time in the 19th century and neither had a “historical advantage”.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top