Question about cramming in too many countries

First off..I apologize I've been creating so many threads lately...I just really value the feedback I receive from this community..probably get some of the best info on the web here..

I'm starting to get my budget and costs per day figured out. Along that vein, I'm trying to figure out how many days to spend in each country. I'd like to point out, this isn't set in stone. If something is awesome, and I don't want to leave, I'm not going to leave. If I hear about somewhere not on the intinerary that sounds awesome, I may very well head there. This is just to give me a basic framework of where I want to be and about how long I want to be there given my budget.

I'm very aware that the general consensus on this board is to not rush, take your time, etc. For most of us, we want to see as many places as possible, which is obviously in direct conflict the the aforementioned philosophy.

I've been told spending just 3 weeks in China is no where near enough time... or 10 days in Spain, Italy, and France each (1 month total) is rushing it. I agree completely, if one were to try and fit the entire country into those time frames, they'd be rushing and shorting themselves....my question is this: is it really so bad to only see a couple parts of a country? For instance..if I only had time for Paris and surrounding areas (say within 3-4 hours), wasn't moving around much, or generally rushing it...would it still be a waste to visit these countries? Sometimes I get the vibe that unless you have time to visit all or most parts of a country, you should wait until you have more time...any thoughts?

Upon reflection & subsequent travel since my RTW, I have realized that it's better to have experienced at least a few days in a country than to have missed it completely.

The few days will at least let you a feeling of the country so you can judge if you want to return on another trip to explore it more fully or if it was enough to satisfy your curiosity, with no need to return.

An example is, my 3 days in Mongolia were no where enough, while my week in China, had figured on about a month, was plenty & I have no desire to return.

yanks26dmb wrote:my question is this: is it really so bad to only see a couple parts of a country? For instance..if I only had time for Paris and surrounding areas (say within 3-4 hours), wasn't moving around much, or generally rushing it...would it still be a waste to visit these countries? Sometimes I get the vibe that unless you have time to visit all or most parts of a country, you should wait until you have more time...any thoughts?

Man, that is SUCH a good question!!

For me... well, let's see... I spent TWO MONTHS in ONLY Peru (and only two "regions" of the country--sierra and costa, didn't go to the selva at all, much less anywhere else in South America), and that was not enough time for me. On the other hand, I spent two weeks in Malaysia; that was enough to too much. In both cases, I saw approximately the same percentage of the country, but felt very differently about my experiences in each. A similar feeling to what busman expressed.

Here's the thing: you are not going to see the entirety of ANY country during your journey! In fact, I would venture to say that you haven't even seen the entirety of your own home country, either! After my international travels, I decided that I wanted to see more of the U.S.A. for just that reason.

It's up to you to decide how much time and geographic coverage is enough based on your interests and preferences. If you are really into outdoor activities, you will naturally want to explore every square inch of New Zealand. If you are really into wine, you will find yourself wandering the backroads of rural France. Would you go to the Ukraine for outdoor activities? Probably not. Thailand for wine? I hope not!

One of the best things I did while planning my travel was to decide what I wanted to experience in each place.

So, for example, I wanted to sit my first meditation retreat in Thailand. I also knew that I'd want some special, "romantic" time to reconnect with my boyfriend after observing Noble Silence for 10 days LOL! We ended up skipping Chiang Mai and northern Thailand on our trip, even though we are also outdoor enthusiasts. Now I know that I liked my general experiences in Thailand that I would go back to see more of the country.

I think some of the "Oh what do you mean, you didn't see x, y, or z, you're not a REAL traveler, you're just a tourist!" attitude comes from snotty hipster backpackers who really believe that their experiences are more authentic than yours because they've done the "off the beaten track" stuff (which, in this globalized world, is becoming harder to access). Don't listen to them. You will look back on your experiences for the rest of your life, which is a deeply personal thing. Know who you are, what you enjoy, where you feel connected, and listen to that wisdom. There is value in all experiences, no matter where they happen or what form they take. My wish for anyone embarking on a journey like this is that their experience transcend a checklist of what they "should" do.

Hope that helps!

^ agreed completely. Thanks for the very lengthy and informative reply!![

I think my feelnig is, there are certainly things I want to do...(admittedly, eating good food being tops in pretty much every country ). I just look down my list of countries I want to hit during my 12-14 month trip, and frankly, it's long. I stay in no country less than 10 days however. I've just been told that I need to cut things out or else I'll feel rushed.

I guess I feel like..if I'm not doing a ton of intracountry travel in some of the shorter stays...why am I going to feel rushed? 10-14 days in one city plus day trips doesn't seem rushed at all to me...To me (an American), that'd be like telling someone not to bother coming to America unless they could spend 3-4 months here. If someone only had time to visit NYC, or Miami and south FL, or Southern California...I certainly wouldn't tell them not to come because that's all they had time for. Sure, visitng NYC means you haven't a clue what life is like in New Orleans, or vice versa..but not experiencing ALL doesnt mean you shouldn't experience ANY...imo.

yanks26dmb wrote:First off..I apologize I've been creating so many threads lately...I just really value the feedback I receive from this community..probably get some of the best info on the web here..

I'm starting to get my budget and costs per day figured out. Along that vein, I'm trying to figure out how many days to spend in each country. I'd like to point out, this isn't set in stone. If something is awesome, and I don't want to leave, I'm not going to leave. If I hear about somewhere not on the intinerary that sounds awesome, I may very well head there. This is just to give me a basic framework of where I want to be and about how long I want to be there given my budget.

I'm very aware that the general consensus on this board is to not rush, take your time, etc. For most of us, we want to see as many places as possible, which is obviously in direct conflict the the aforementioned philosophy.

I've been told spending just 3 weeks in China is no where near enough time... or 10 days in Spain, Italy, and France each (1 month total) is rushing it. I agree completely, if one were to try and fit the entire country into those time frames, they'd be rushing and shorting themselves....my question is this: is it really so bad to only see a couple parts of a country? For instance..if I only had time for Paris and surrounding areas (say within 3-4 hours), wasn't moving around much, or generally rushing it...would it still be a waste to visit these countries? Sometimes I get the vibe that unless you have time to visit all or most parts of a country, you should wait until you have more time...any thoughts?

Such a big question.

I'm certainly a big proponent of slowing down. Slowing down applies both to countries and to individual cities. I often see itineraries - particularly from the "first trip to Europe" types - which involve moving on ever day or two. In this case it's seeing too many cities that becomes that problem. So they see everything, but it all streams together. My first trip to Europe was like that, too, and so I constantly try to calm people down and get them to focus on what's really important to them, because I've found that much more rewarding. My personal prefered pace is 3 to 4 nights per location, but even this is too fast for truly long trips....I was quite worn out by the fifth month of it. While I'll probably move at a similar pace next time I take a long trip, there will be budget and room in the schedule to plop down for 2 or 3 weeks at some point and rejuvenate.

Slowing down in terms of cutting down countries has more to do with culture shocks and the sheer amount of time that long distance travel eats up. Traveling slowly accross France over the course of 3 or 4 weeks naturally allows you more contact with different nuances of French culture, and scratch beneath the surface, but it also means that at no time do you lose a whole day to travel...you spend 2 or 3 hours on a train at a time, and still have ample opportunity to sightsee and explore on the same day. 8 or 10 hours in transit to get the the next country is much more tiring, and you also get to do nothing interesting with your day.

Short stays in a country also, usually, mean that you only visit places you'd heard of before you went there. I consider this to be the biggest mistake in traveling...it's usually the places I heard about while I was there, or located by digging through the "small" entries in the guidebook, that have left me with the best memories.

My thoughts are the 3 weeks in China might be reasonable or unreasonable, depending on what you want to get out of it. If you have a lot of highlight points that you want to hit up, scattered around the country, it is probably not enough. You'll hit your highlights, but not have time to be open to unusual or unexpected locales. If you've picked a region and identified 2 or three places you want to see, but otherwise left yourself open to the unexpected, it's probably fine.

When you're going over your schedule, my suggestion is to look for cuts in places that you can get a seat sale to. Visiting Mongolia is a lot easier if you're already in China than on a special trip. If you don't go now, you really might never get there. But France, Spain, Mexico, even Argentina, are all very accessible from home, so you're likely to visit when you have only a couple weeks available later in life...worry less about trying to see everything at once in these areas.

Finally, I want to add a thought about shedules and "not set in stone." Whatever schedule you come up with, it will be your anchor. Few people actually throw it out when they find something they like. Almost everyone deviates from it, but these deviations tend to be small. And particularly when you do have fixed points in your trip - prebooked flights - any deviation has to be made up somewhere along the line...an extra 3 days in Istanbul might mean cutting out Sanliurfa entirely.

2wanderers wrote:an extra 3 days in Istanbul might mean cutting out Sanliurfa entirely.

and that would be CRIMINAL!

yanks26dmb wrote:10-14 days in one city plus day trips doesn't seem rushed at all to me.

Me neither. However, 2wanderers's points about travel fatigue (you gotta chill out somewhere in there) and only visiting places you know about and plan to visit are valid. You must consider what is important to you and what you hope to get out of your trip, without being too attached to any one outcome. If it's important to you, there will be other trips in the future.

My 4 cents.

I think the reason besides fatigue that people get all worried about not spending enough time to see a place is one of those as long as you're there and interested in X you should probably see what it has to offer sort of thing. After all, we only pass through far-flung countries so often, right? Put it this way, if you've never been to Italy before and you tell me you only want to visit, say, Florence, I'd probably tell you to rethink it and spend more time in Italy proper because there are so many other amazing places there offering similar things- Italian food, Renaissance architecture, masterworks, etc. I also think people are a lot less willing to stop and explore further if they discover a place they love if they feel they have ten other countries to visit ASAP.

Everyone visits countries for too-short periods of time: for example I spent less than a week in Austria on my rtw because my interest at that time was skiing, so I stayed in Kitzbuhel for 5 days to do just that. Really wanted to see Vienna and hope to make it someday, but you can't see everything and have to prioritize what interests you most.

One last thing I cannot emphasize enough is I think a classic rtw mistake is to try to cram everything into the trip because we forget that this is not the only opportunity of your life that you'll ever have to travel, albeit it is a very special one. So it is perfectly ok to not see everything and save a few places for later adventures- if you're only interested in Paris for example that's an easy trip to do later on 10 days of vacation. Just a thought.

I've been told spending just 3 weeks in China is no where near enough time... or 10 days in Spain, Italy, and France each (1 month total) is rushing it. I agree completely, if one were to try and fit the entire country into those time frames, they'd be rushing and shorting themselves....my question is this: is it really so bad to only see a couple parts of a country? For instance..if I only had time for Paris and surrounding areas (say within 3-4 hours), wasn't moving around much, or generally rushing it...would it still be a waste to visit these countries? Sometimes I get the vibe that unless you have time to visit all or most parts of a country, you should wait until you have more time...any thoughts?

Yes obviously I have:

First : this is your trip. You do what YOU want.
Second : When folks say 'you can't. or you shouldn't' what they are really saying is 'they can't or shouldn't'. Look back at #1
Third: The hardest step on any journey is the first one. Confucius.
Fourth: Move slowly.Listen and ask questions of the 'natives' and fellow travelers. Seeing the sites is amazing but remember that the people are a product of the environment, or perhaps they created part of the environment. In order to understand where you are and the value of the experience you probably need to understand a little of the people, their history and culture.
Fifth: Schedules are a 'western concept' and your concept of time will change when you are on the road. Don't be afraid to simply stay if it feels right. If you see 4 or forty countries it is the same if you got what you were seeking.
Sixth: Traveling IS seeking. At some point you will want to stop because you have found what you seek. You will not find it if you are not listening and hyperactivity often precludes clear hearing and understanding.
Seven: This is not a check list or a competition. This is what you want from it. If being in 60 countries in 60 days is your bag ...go for it. If you want to lie on a beach on an outlier polynesian island until the next mail boat comes......do it. You may never be there again.
Eighth: If you make an arrangement to go somewhere with someone and they don't arrive after a reasonable time, go anyway. They probably weren't suitable to travel with in any case.
Ninth: Buy enough Aerobic Oxygen to put in your water wherever you go. It is tasteless and I have used it all over the world and never got sick drinking the water wherever I was. 800-661-8364 or www.goodforyou.ca. BOSS in Boulder Colorado carries it. You can Google them.
Tenth: Come home safe ( wherever that is), share your experiences, hints and thoughts with us all. Remember leaving is just a prelude to coming home and vice-versa.

Happy Travels

Christopher

Now that was a well thought out first post!

My views on this have certainly evolved over the years.

First I was a serial crammer. I'd sit there planning trips (mostly just for fun and I didn't end up actually taking them, but the idea was there): a month in Africa would have me jumping through ten different countries, a month in Europe would be fifteen. I wanted to see everything, and made the rookie mistake of believing that "everything" meant "all the countries" rather than "all the stuff in all the countries". Of course, you could live in a single CITY your whole life and never see every corner of it, but it didn't really cross my mind that zipping to Paris, taking a photo of the Eiffel Tower, and jumping right back on a train isn't even starting to begin to commence "getting" France. I think this attitude is understandable- it's only natural to want to see and do everything, and it's easy to jump to the conclusion that we should thus do it all really fast.

I switched gears after living abroad several times and realizing that six months or a year in X location gives you a completely different (and in a lot of ways far more valuable) view of it than breakfast in Guatemela, lunch in Honduras, and dinner in Nicaragua ever can. I started looking down on the speed demons. "How can you say you've seen Cambodia?" I would say. "You were only there for ten days. Idiot!"

Now, my stance is... who cares. Do what you wanna do. It's your trip. There are countries I've spent over six months in (the US, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, South Korea) and countries I've spent less than a day in (Serbia, Slovakia, Norway, Hungary, Denmark). Do I feel a lot more qualified to give travel advice on Sweden than on Hungary? Of course. Do I know more about daily life in Turkey than in Serbia? For sure. When my bus crashes in the Andes, will I be sent to the innermost circle of Travel Hell for including Denmark on my "places I've been" map? Um... probably not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that nobody will ever pore over my passport with the same wistfulness as I do. I travel the way I want to and hang around in places as long as I feel like it. If that means that I spend two years in one country and two days in another, I'm not gonna feel guilty.