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.
I notice many travelers go to a country and end up visiting only one country and that's it. For example, so many claim they have been to France but they only went to Paris and Paris only, nothing else. For London for the UK, or Barcelona in Spain, or Tokyo in Japan.
It is sometimes ok as we may not have a lot of time, but too often they quickly move on to a different country right afterwards, completely ignoring the cultural offering as well as the wonderful landscape in the rest of the first country. I wonder why is that? It is because of ignorance (I know nothing about France outside Paris) or the vanity of increasing "numbers of country visited"?
Probably 90% of people I know who visited France only saw Paris. I usually try to see at least 2, preferably 3 cities/regions before moving to a new country because in this way you get to know a lot more about it. In most case, the capital/largest city doesn't really represent the country at all.
I'd guess it is because they want to see certain things in limited time, and most of those famous things happen to be in Paris, London, Rome, etc.
If you asked someone from outside France what there is to see in that country you'd probably get the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, and maybe Notre Dame. Well hey those are all in Paris, so they go to Paris and then with wonders of convenient modern world travel they can be in another country three days later where most of the stuff they've heard of is also in the main city.
I pretty much just go to Santa Fe. Every time I go, I discover new things. Not really jazzed about travelling anywhere else when I retire, but I am sure I will branch out.
I tend to do this. I went to Argentina over the summer and only saw Buenos Aires. I'm trying to expand, but I really hate traveling by myself and prefer to have someone with me. Though I'm the man and still do all the planning (or most), its nice to travel with a woman. In the Spring, I'm planning to go to Europe. I know I'm going to Amsterdam, but beyond that, no idea. I've never traveled around within Europe, except for the Greek Isles. So the planning of this trip is stressing me out a bit. Thinking of seeing Paris and Brussels in addition to Amsterdam. But going to Paris alone isn't ideal. Too romantic to not be with a woman.
Different reasons occur to me (though this is not, and has never been my style of travelling. I prefer the smaller towns over the large, commercial cities. Always have - except NYC and maybe NOLA. )
I think fear is part if it. In big, well touristed cities, you are assured of finding English speakers and probably English signs, menus, museum footnotes, etc. Not so in small towns.
Travelling to those small towns can be difficult and overwhelming. Even I admit, I do not like to drive in foreign countries and refuse to drive on the opposite side of the road (DH will, but not happily. ) I want easily accessible public transportation - but Uber is changing that considerably.
Bragging rights are a big part of it. Cocktail party chatter requires recognizable destinations.
Many people travel to 'experience' history that they've read about in books or learned in school. With exceptions, those tend to be in major city centers, as do world renowned museums.
Easy access to major airports - limited vacation time and you don't want to 'waste hours getting from the airport to start your vacation,
The proliferation of guidebooks, with their restaurant, hotels and itinerary recommendations, makes it easier to just follow along. No need to seek out and discover anything on your own.
A lot of these are techniques to reduce and avoid stress, and on that basis, positive good things.
Different reasons occur to me (though this is not, and has never been my style of travelling. I prefer the smaller towns over the large, commercial cities. Always have - except NYC and maybe NOLA. )
I think fear is part if it. In big, well touristed cities, you are assured of finding English speakers and probably English signs, menus, museum footnotes, etc. Not so in small towns.
Travelling to those small towns can be difficult and overwhelming. Even I admit, I do not like to drive in foreign countries and refuse to drive on the opposite side of the road (DH will, but not happily. ) I want easily accessible public transportation - but Uber is changing that considerably.
Bragging rights are a big part of it. Cocktail party chatter requires recognizable destinations.
Many people travel to 'experience' history that they've read about in books or learned in school. With exceptions, those tend to be in major city centers, as do world renowned museums.
Easy access to major airports - limited vacation time and you don't want to 'waste hours getting from the airport to start your vacation,
The proliferation of guidebooks, with their restaurant, hotels and itinerary recommendations, makes it easier to just follow along. No need to seek out and discover anything on your own.
A lot of these are techniques to reduce and avoid stress, and on that basis, positive good things.
well, you don't have to travel to small towns. For example, in France you have Lyon, Strasbourg within 2 hours of train. Marseille or Nice, or Toulouse or Bordeaux for 4-5 hours. No need for a flight. They are all vibrant and beautiful, more so than Boston/San Francisco etc.
Bragging rights? If someone said I visited Paris and Rome in the same 7 day trip, that's kind of "well, you really don't know how to travel". If you really want to brag, then go for the less known destinations. WHat's to brag about Paris or London? Plenty of college students have been there.
Who cares if someone stays in one area for their vacation? I'm not going to spend my vacation whisking around to 2, 3, 4, whatever towns just to say I "saw" a country. I'm going to enjoy my time & get to know the city I'm visiting.
I think the OP's premise is a little odd (and just a way for him to exhibit his usual judgy-ness) and somewhat illogical.
If I go to Paris for a week, no, I have not "seen France."
But...
If I go to Nice for a week, I have not "seen France."
If I go to Grenoble for a week, I have not "seen France."
If I go to Calais for a week, I have not "seen France."
If I have a year to traipse around the whole country, I'm a lucky dog...and yes, I've probably "seen France!"
But I really thing snobicelli also wants to suggest that the most popular cities to visit are not always a good representation of the country as a whole, and this I agree with in principle. I too would much rather pick one "second tier" place and explore it and its surroundings, and not be herded around tourist traps or packing and re-packing every 72 hours.
Good question ["Why Brussels?"]. It was suggested to me by a friend who's a world traveler, but I still need to research. Its also close to Amsterdam by train. I'm a newbie traveling around Europe, so a little nervous about navigating it properly.
Munich was a possibility as well, but again, the only thing I KNOW I'm doing, is going to Amsterdam. So what would you recommend for a single, introverted guy who would like to meet some fun people and enjoy some different culture? Trip will be between 10-14 days, depending on where I ultimately decide to go and flights.
Paris isn't out of the question by any means. Might be a good place to end the trip. Start in Amsterdam and end in Paris, or vice versa, with another city in between.
Good question. It was suggested to me by a friend who's a world traveler, but I still need to research. Its also close to Amsterdam by train. I'm a newbie traveling around Europe, so a little nervous about navigating it properly.
Munich was a possibility as well, but again, the only thing I KNOW I'm doing, is going to Amsterdam. So what would you recommend for a single, introverted guy who would like to meet some fun people and enjoy some different culture? Trip will be between 10-14 days, depending on where I ultimately decide to go and flights.
Paris isn't out of the question by any means. Might be a good place to end the trip. Start in Amsterdam and end in Paris, or vice versa, with another city in between.
Do what is best for you.. I love Amsterdam, and Brussels is pretty cool too.. It is an easy train ride and an easy city to navigate, so, you should be fine.
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.
