Plate tectonics

I've recently become mildly annoyed with some sources on plate tectonics that I've looked at, because they treat the "Eurasian plate" as if it were, in fact, a single plate, which it is not. If it were, there would be no explanation at all for all the mountains that are smack-dab in the middle of the plate, and we'd only be able to explain the Alps (as the boundary between Europe and Africa) and the Himalayas (where the Indian plate has charged into the flank of Eurasia.) Where then did all the other mountains come from, including the Urals, the Caucasus, the Zagros, etc.?

The fact is, that Eurasia has a much more interesting history than simply being the Eurasian plate forever. Siberia was once a unique continent, and the Urals formed when Baltica charged into them. Baltica then split along what become the Mid-Atlantic rift, separating Europe from North America. Khazakstania was a separate plate as well, and China is largely made up of the Amur plate. Smaller plates, such as Okhotsk plate, the Anatolian plate the Sunda plate, etc. also contributed to what it today called the Eurasian plate. Some of these have been stuck together (and moved together) for so long that at the moment they are behaving as a single plate, but others are not—the Amur and Anatolian plates are both slowly rotated, for instance, in place.

When you've got all that interest, why simply simplify and say, "it's all the Eurasian plate?" Not only is it inaccurate, but it's boring.