Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than other continents, Europe is, generally speaking more famous for its beautiful cities and towns with its historic landmarks and architecture, cultural amenities, and thoughtful urban planning and quality of life than it is for its wild nature, outdoor pursuits opportunities.
Again I am sayin GENERALLY speaking. European landscapes and nature while may be pretty is compared to other continents so highly modified over the centuries, so altered from what it was originally, and where there is much less that is "pristine", and with much less biological diversity, where most of the plants and animals present are those that have adapted to human civilization. Again . . . compared to other continents.
On other continents the reverse is generally true. African cities and towns are generally more poor and depressing while its nature is abundant, varied, and in many areas pristine. (again, I'm talking big picture), Asian and Latin American cities are chaotic from having grown so fast in the past half century, and also are countries where the remote, pristine wildlands are a major attraction. North America and Australia/NZ again prosperous cities, but very modern, and kind of all look the same, but massive, one of a kind national parks.
Again, these are generalizations, but now that we've got that out of the way . . . which European countries ARE more known for, and where the major destinations do skew more towards nature, the outdoors, and/or remote beauty than they are for cities, culture, and civilization.
Countries/regions where the cities and towns and cultural and historic sites are clearly the focus would include countries that were global or regional superpowers, but have tame, flat countryside, with towns and cities closer together.
England (compared to the Celtic lands wild terrain, England's countryside are gently rolling with neat hedgerows),
France, (except maybe in the far south),
Much of Germany (except far south),
Spain: beautiful historic cities, world class architecture, but countryside/nature is perceived more arid and barren in a lot of the country, except for northwest side).
Maybe Sweden? It was a more powerful kingdom with more castles and palaces, but countryside is dominated by regrowing/regenerating woods?
Denmark too. Flat, low lying, but Copenhagen might be the most fun capital in Scandinavia.
Here's my list:
1. Norway - Fjords and mountains - end of story. Cities from my understanding are more modern from oil boom. Oh, Iceland too. One of the few European countries that is "all nature" in terms of its appeal.
2. The Celtic lands - Ireland, Scotland, Wales. The Celtic moorlands, rugged cliffs of Irelands west coast, Snowdonia of Wales, Scotland, etc. Their cities and towns are charming but relatively small compared to other European cities.
3. Switzerland - The Swiss Alps enough said. The cities are very prosperous, but are more seen as "working cities" (Geneva and Zurich)
4. Greece - Rugged, wild, islands, etc. with ruins (top attractions) more in the countryside. While beyond the Acropolis and nearby museums and archaeological sites, Athens grew big mostly in the 20th century haphazardly and is smoggy, like LA, California.
5. The Balkans - Former Yugoslavia (especially Croatia and Slovenia), known for beautiful national parks, forests, coasts - cities might have more commie era block towers and might still have buildings still damaged from civil war in 90s? Throw in Romania too. Transylvanian Alps and Carpathians breathtaking, but Bucharest has legacy of bad dictators. (Parliament building never been used).
Italy I think is the one country that truly has the best of both nature/outdoors and culture/cities/history.
Again, these are generalizations, and I don't mean to offend anyone.
I wouldn't put Switzerland, most of mountains there are not that wild like these cables of Zermatt that reach 3900 meters or end up at the feet of the Matterhorn. Maybe around the Bernina but then the same exists in Italy and France.
When i think 'nature only' in Europe I think Norway, Iceland and Croatia...
But Norway pops in first
the countries with the most attractive and vibrant cities, are also often the countries with the most natural beauty imo. spain, france and italy have more amazing landscapes than for example sweden and finland, but the pop. density does not make them appealing for the hiker types.
Usually applies to those countries where culture and history is not that strong and rich (such as those ex-pirate countries).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
