i am planning a round the world trip leaving in September 2014 (gives me plenty of time to save up!) to about a MILLION countries as my list just keeps growing.. but i can't decide whether it would be best to go to the most expensive countries first (USA, Aus etc) then round to india, russia, europe etc or to hit the cheap countries so as not to dent my budget so early on? i am soo confused! i have tried to research this but there doesnt seem to be any sites that let me know this sort of thing. I have found one site that said hit the expensive ones first. just wondering if any of you lot could give me any advice? by the way im a londoner so will be starting out here (unfortunately)
That's a question only you can answer because there is no "right" or "wrong" answer.
For many new, inexperienced and NERVOUS travellers it's better they start off with developed nations because everything is so much more familiar and non-intimidating. It's amazing how homogenized the developed nations have become... everyone pretty much eats the same food, watches the same movies, listens to the same music, wears the same clothes, etc. etc. etc. The downside of course is that your inexperience and inability to "break free" from the familiar might result in you spending like crazy and eating into your precious budget early.
If you're not a nervous traveller then the under-developed nations are the way to go. You're immediately in a totally foreign place and you're bombarded with an avalanche of stimuli that you're not used too - but so long as you're following your guide book you'll be surrounded by people just like you so there's lots of support. You'll be spending pennies on the dollar compared to home and "really" travelling, right from the get-go.
Who knows, you might even decide to drop some those expensive, developed destinations and travel for longer - and in way more comfort - by spending your hard earned trip money in places that are foreign and affordable.
No matter how you do it, have fun.
hmm yeah that has put it in perspective quite a bit actually. i only added on america to my list right at the end and if i am honest travel for me is a way to experience 'proper' foreign identity and culture and to take myself out of my comfort zone. Russia, China and India have been on my hitlist from day 1 as well as the classic Oz and NZ so i guess you're right.. i could let go of my nerves, stick with the original plan and go to the less developed countries first then go and work my butt off in Oz and probably end up saving cash in the long run. Then maybe america could be the added bonus and i coud afford to stay somewhere (a litle) bit nice... would be nice to end my trip in the luxury of LA or New York! hmmm.. i think i may do that actually.. thank you
what would you do? haha (always in two minds! so bad)
Personally I have no interest anymore visiting "developed" countries. For the reasons I stated above they're simply too homogenized and thus.... boring.
Not that I don't love a week in New York or Berlin every now and then and I'd kill for a surfing trip to Australia, but at this point in my life that's not "travel," that's "holidaying." Two separate things...