Hitch and spend more time in E. Europe are your great suggestions LuxCharlie? So what you are suggesting is that if the OP can't do what s/he wants to do, that s/he do something cheaper? Why not suggest skipping W. Europe altogether, that would reduce overall costs a lot.
That is entirely my point of the various posts you refer to where I say something like, 'it is better to enjoy 6 months than survive for 12.' What is the point of travel if you can't see and do the things you want to see and do? Travelling cheaper is not equal to travelling with a bigger budget no matter how much budget travellers might want to think so. Sometimes it seems to me that some people are under the impression that just going to a place is all that matters. If an art lover goes to Paris but can't afford the price of a ticket to go into the Louvre, would you say they got the most out of their trip? Use common sense. The better your budget the more you can see and do, it's as simple as that.
I think too many posters think maximum time away from home is the ultimate goal. I think too many posters choose which countries and areas they will visit based on the average daily cost of the country or area. Instead, I suggest that what matters is what you DO each day you are away and that you go to the places that interest you regardless of how little time you can afford to be there. I have no objection to someone choosing to stay in hostels rather than hotels to stretch a budget. I have no objection to someone buying food in a grocery store rather than in restaurants. Those don't affect what you DO with your time. But when you avoid places to save money or spend a lot of your time searching for the cheapest everything to stay within a budget, you are interfering with what you DO. I hope that makes it clear to you LuxCharlie.
As for my backpacking experience LuxCharlie, I am 62 and have been travelling independently for more than 40 odd years. My first long term trip took place in 1971 and with a total of $600 in my pocket and a one way ticket to London. I had no itinerary beyond that first flight and no budget other than the total in my pocket in cash. That trip lasted one year less one week. After several months in W. Europe I crossed the Med and crossed Africa from north to south, ending up in Johannesburg, S. Africa where I got a job as a draughtsman to earn the money to fly home. On arrival back at Toronto airport I had a dime (10 cents) in my pocket. Enough to call my Dad and ask him to come and pick me up. Instead I chose to walk the 10 miles or so home in order to surprise my parents. I still have that dime. That was only my first long trip LuxCharlie. I've been travelling ever since. I've sailed in every ocean but the Antarctic including 3 Atlantic passages, as well as most seas. I've actually backpacked (in the original meaning of the word) in half the deserts of the world as well as most major mountain ranges. I've been shot at, arrested several times and kicked out of a few countries for various amusing (in retrospect) reasons. I don't think anyone would say I haven't been there and done that if that is what you were attempting to suggest by asking what experience of backpacking I had.
What I do know is that as I have had more funds available to travel I have found that it makes a difference. I don't stay only in 5 star hotels but I don't bother with hostels at all anymore. I don't NEED to. There is a seemingly common trend of thought here on the TT that 'backpacking' is an elitist thing. It isn't, it's about necessity.
MC_Deli, while some activities do indeed cost money, I don't think you can simplify to that extent. I am more likely to spend 200 of those days hiking rather than sitting in a beach shack. Hiking generally costs nothing. Spending 200 days in a beach shack would be my idea of a boring nightmare. What takes up budget money other than a room and food will vary depending on the person's interests obviously. If you never want to visit a museum or art gallery, then sure you could get by with a bit less than someone who does. However, if you want to take a cellphone on your travels because you can't imagine life without one, you will spend a whole lot more than I do on phone calls. It is indeed horses for courses. One of these days I'd love to see a thread on just how much some people are spending on phone calls while travelling.
What you spend your money on is up to you but there is a minimum below which your experience will suffer. A hostel and grocery store food is fine as I said but some of the other choices people make because of lack of funds are most definitely detracting from their experiences.
Go where you want to go; stay as long as you need to to see and do what interests you; leave when you are ready to leave, not before; spend as much as you need to spend without throwing money away, to do and see what you want to do and see; go to the next place of interest and repeat the process; continue until either the maximum time available runs out or your money does; go home.
There is NEVER a list of places that you MUST go to on any given trip. Itineraries and budgets blind you to what is happening around you and cause you to miss opportunities that arise. I've heard someone in a bar in the south of France, pass up a space in a VW camper headed to the Running of the Bulls, with the comment, "Oh God, I'd love to go, but I've got a flight to Istanbul to catch from Rome next Wednesday". What a missed opportunity. Istanbul would still be there next year but that opportunity is gone forever.
The greatest attraction of travel is the feeling of freedom it brings. How exactly does having an itinerary and sticking to a budget equate with freedom? What it equates with is bringing your conditioned responses in your home world into your travels. Try travelling with no fixed plan or budget if you really want to experience freedom.
