Say you had only 3 weeks of vacation in a year, which type of travel would you opt for...
a) Visit only a single country per year, taking the time to learn in depth about the culture, people and geography. You would use the 3 weeks to travel around the same country experiencing it from various angles and from different cities. You realize that with this form of travel you will understand the countries that you visit well but will not cover much ground over the years.
b) Breezing through 3-5 countries in 3 weeks, visiting only the big cities, taking in the basic highlights. Your "countries been to" list will expand rapidly over the years but you realize that you will cover only the very basic aspects of each country.
Personally I started with philosophy b) in my early travels but have since switched to a). I spent 3 full weeks in Japan last November and even with that I feel the need to return to Japan to cover so much that I missed, I can't fathom anyone spending 5 days in Japan and seeing very much of anything.
Posts: 182 | Location: Irvine, CA | Registered: 13 February 2008
Given that this is Slow Trav, probably not too many rushers! This is my situation exactly. I get 3-4 weeks/year, would like to visit one country, or area of a country in depth. However, taking all my vacation at once and then having to work 49 weeks in a row is difficult and leaves me exhausted, so even the whole 3 weeks is not always available. Oh to have the civilized European 6 weeks!
We go to one country at a time. We rarely go for more than 10 days now due to the age of our greyhound. However, given 3 weeks - we'd stay in one place in one country for at least 1 week in each village.
That said, we'd love to spend a month in Paris; a month in Antibes; a month in Dordogne; a month in Normandy... you get the idea! Someday!
We once spent 4 days in Paris, took the overnight train to Milan/Varenna; spent 4 days in Varenna; spent 5 days in Rome.
I've split time in Jordan and Israel; Finland and Russia; Greece mainland and Crete.
All of our other trips have been to one country at a time unless we had to overnight at an airport hotel to make a connection.
We're been doing slow travel since before I knew that's what it was called!
Yes, as this is Slow Trav, there is probably a chorus of participants who would choose option B. As Bethtanya pointed out, we don't always get to choose what we'd most like to do..... but in a perfect world, given the opportunity, option B every time. I find option A just plain too exhausting -exciting perhaps, but there's no time to stop and smell the roses, and not enough of an opportunity to make a place "yours" if even for just a little while.
One of the slowest trips we ever took was in our relative youth - around the age of 30- when we bicycled around Europe. Later we hiked trails in Ireland and England. There is something wonderful about this. There are always tales to tell - even the worst day of rain or mishap somehow becomes something special when remembered. You don't see many main sites, but you talk to lots of people and experience the life there, often in places that tourists don't often go to. You actually SMELL the place, hear the place, etc.
BUT, in our 60s now, the spirit would like to do all that, but we've "downgraded" to a car. We still like to take it slow, get off the beaten path, and walk as much as we can. I like exploring a big city on foot for a week if I can rent in an interesting neighborhood. But my real love is the countryside - in any European country. Renting a place in the countryside, near a great village, in a lovely area, is my idea of perfect. And if it has a pool too -wow.
I figure that when we get OLDER, we can go on supported small group tours or cruises. Not yet. (though we are fine with a really really small cruise)
That's my philosophy in a nutshell - now back to the SuperBowl. I'm not much of a fan, and I just had to take a break. Linda
Posts: 934 | Location: Outlying area of Chicago | Registered: 15 September 2004
My wife has 3 weeks and I can close my office as long as I want technically but there is a cost there! It is hard for me to take it all at once.My coleague and I only trade coverage for our offices for a two week trip, he dosn't want to do 3 weeks. I can generally close for Christmas but we are not too fond of cold weather travel in Europe at least. RR
One change I've noted in our vacations lately - since we can't get three weeks at one time, we usually try to take two vacations a year - one is sightseeing (or as Americana and Judy mentioned sightseeing combined with life style experiencing) and the other is usually a combo of restful and active (i.e., we'll do something active in the morning like a hike or bike ride and in the afternoon, we'll hang by a beach or something, relaxing and reading).
But in both cases, we try to plop in an area rather than moving around - the 3 nights here, 3 nights there bothers me.
Though I must admit, we do do that sometimes, especially upon visiting a new country/area for the first time.
I never think in terms of countries,which are merely artifical political lines, but I do think in terms of regions. To me a great trip would be 3 weeks in Ticino, Bavaria, Salzkammergut, and Sud Tyrol. That may be 4 countries but is really 4 adjoining regions with similar cultural backgrounds. All of Europe is merely cultural regions--forget countries.
I think you SHOULD race around and see a whole bunch of places when you're young -- if you are fortunate enough to afford it. It's really the age-appropriate thing to do.
How else will you know where you will want to go back and spend three weeks when you are older -- and are fortunate enough to afford it?
Yes, traveling nowadays is like "visit 5 European countries in 10 days, or less" depending on the package you're getting. I think this is really crazy, and no one can really get much of anything out of the places they visit that way. It's more like a visiting marathon. No one can really learn anything about a country traveling this way.
This of course is due to lack of two things, which is lack of time and lack of money. People want to see as much as they can for as little money as they can. But really option A is the option of choice for me
Country definations are political--regional definitions are cultural and are real. Does that make sense?
I think I disagree with you...I'll know for sure when I've chewed on this idea some more. The political boundaries exist many times, but not always, because of the cultural affinities and groupings. Alsace Lorraine and the Tyrol support your point but I think the Netherlands and Denmark argue against it.
Spain is all a good example--very diverse. I never talk about "Spain" per se. It is always Andalusia, Catalonia, The Basque country, or Galicia etc. These regions are all culturally very different and unique. Tell me, what is Spain? I see posts that list Spain, France & Italy as their destinations when they really mean Catalonia, Provence and Liguria. It is all best desribed by regions, not countries.
I agree with this in part, but has a whole we can say that a country as a whole has the same culture and customs. That is what I've always witnessed all over Europe and the Americas.
I've done both approaches over the years. I became accustomed to "rapid" travel, packing and unpacking, dashing to and through airports as a business traveler and did not think twice about it when my wife joined me on several occasions...we simply continued that pace: e.g.:
One week: London, Paris, Lyon, Amsterdam One week: Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong One week: Paris, Geneva, Munich, London, Basingstoke.
Now I'm a convert to the slowtrav approach: plopping into one area for 7-10 days. For all the reasons cited above and because I am substantially older now and don't get a kick outta that kinda pace, like I used to and I have no "business" obligations anyway.
Posts: 738 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: 12 September 2006
"I agree with this in part, but has a whole we can say that a country as a whole has the same culture and customs. That is what I've always witnessed all over Europe and the Americas."
Having lived in NYC, the midwest and New England I can say for sure that regional customs vary widely in the US.
