1

Yes: Guidebook.

2

In 3 weeks you will only see a tiny bit of Peru and Bolivia.

3

Agree with both 1 and 2...

Read a guidebook first....3 weeks in Bolivia and Peru is very little already,without adding on all the extra time (and cost) of continuing on to Brazil or Argentina.

If 3 weeks is your maximum I'd just pick one of the countries and spend your time there.....

4

Well I agree with the above too. I picked up a current copy of the lonely planet guide to s. america and I have ordered the rough guide s. america from my library but guidebooks aren't the only source of information which is why I posted the question here.

three weeks for Peru and Bolivia and then three weeks to cross either Argentina or Brazil is also much too little time to see these countries. However I can't take more than 6 weeks off work (and am only able to take that much cause I work with very nice people) so rather than spending 6 weeks in one country (still too little time( I am thinking of doing the trip I described to get a taste of 3 countries. Maybe it isn't what I should be doing but I do have limited time and money and can't spend the time I would like to in all of the places that interest me.

John

5

Am sure you can get some good advice here mate but what do you really like? All you have really told anyone is that you don't like big cities but want to spend 3 or 4 days in Rio, Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires which are all really big, and that you fancy about 3 weeks in Peru and/or Bolivia.

Where are you flying in to (Lima I guess). Why not head south from there towards Arequipa, the Colca Canyon, Cusco, Machu Picchu, the sacred valley, Puno and Lake Titicaca, in to Bolivia, Copacabana, La Paz, Potosi, Sucre. There you go, I have basically given you a list of places I went to that I liked (Except for Puno which I thought was a dump but you will go through if you follow that route). I also missed off Santa Cruz which was the last place I visited in Bolivia. Didn't rate it much but I had no money to see the surrounding area which I believe is worth seeing. I flew out of Buenos Aires which was amazing and I spent 4 days there, but you say you don't like big cities.

There are so many variables that it is hard for people to give you good advice without you giving more info. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go. The first time I came on the South America branch I asked where shall I go in South America, I fly in to Santiago and out of Buenos Aires. I got a lot of very short responses. Once I did some more research and had some more specific questions I got some amazing responses. I ended up spending New Year in the most amazing place in Chile. Even stuff like dates can help. I was in La Paz and it was amazing. I was there on a weekend on the second anniversary of the new constitution and it coincided with Alasitas. I know other people who went to La Paz and didn't like it.

6

Ok, so it's a 'taster' trip. In that case it's different. A girlfriend of mine just did 6 weeks all the highlights - spent twice as much money, but loved it. Do you have $$ to spend on flights? That makes all the difference. If so, you could spend 5 weeks in Peru /Bolivia, then fly to Iguassu then fly to Rio at the end, which are, IMO, two of the greatest highlights on the continent, if not the planet. To get across by bus will be a very long, expensive trip - you really are better off to fly, especially given your timeframe.

You also need to give us an idea of your budget - you wouldn't believe how many people come on expecting to travel on $20 a day.

7

OK...6 weeks is (a bit) more reasonable.

Personally I'd still stick with Peru and Bolivia...6 weeks is enough time to see many of the highlights there.

Of course as above,your budget is important.Argentina or Brazil will cost you 2-3x more per day then those Andean countries.....

8

Guys thanks for the feedback and the initial postings were right in that I do have to spend more time on the guidebooks before I come back with some more focussed questions. In the next year I am going to have so save some money for flights I think and spend some time learning at least basic Spanish. and again for the people who said the time is inadequate for really seeing these countries I couldn't agree more but like I said until I win the lottery my time and money are limited. Isn't life and travel full of these choices and trade-offs?

Thanks

John in Canada

9

Fair play mate, I hope you got some advice you found helpfull. I am sure you will have an amazing time whatever. We don't all have the luxury of time. That said the more time you could give to an individual place the better. I get where you are coming from though.

10

Certainly,time is limited for most people...or money is.Or both ;-)

What needs to be decided is whether it is 'better' to see a small area well or a larger area more superficially.

11

#10

Ha ha. A very good point.I guess it is a complicated question.I would generally like to spend a decent length of time somewhere to get a feel for it. I felt a bit rushed in south america but in general stuck to the 3 day rule everywhere we went. I am glad of that. It is very worthwhile, even down to the shortlived friendship I built up with the lady I bought my cigarettes from in Sucre.