Where should I go?

I've decided to go on a big extended trip beginning in July. I will have about $10 000 for travel (ie. NOT flight, insurance, etc), and I'm planning to just go until the money runs out. The problem is that I don't know where to go first! I have three options in mind. I'm interested in which you would recommend personally, AND in light of what I want out of travel. I enjoy travelling for the sense of adventure, and I like scenery and the outdoors as well as experiencing authentic culture (whatever that is/not in some weird orientalist sense).

#1 - Fly to Singapore and explore Southeast Asia
-Pros: Great traveller infrastructure and food!
-Cons: Maybe too easy? too touristy?

#2 - Fly to Beijing and work my way to Pakistan via the Karakoram highway.
-Pros: I have travelled in China before and enjoyed it, Landscapes and scenery, feeling adventurous.
-Cons: Distances, visa hassle/can't visit Pakistan later in my trip, security situation could be volatile.

#3 - Fly to Turkey and head into Iran.
-Pros: Turkey seems fantastic, Iran seems unique and exotic.
-Cons: Iran might not be so great post-election. Visa hassle. More expensive.

Any other suggestions are welcome! Thanks!

#1: SEA isn't all touristy. You can definitely find places off the beaten path, and if you likes ruins and whatnot, it's goldmine. You can also spend time in Indonesia, which is incredibly cheap and has more out of the way spots. And yes, awesome food all over! Your money will last quite a while.

#2: You can also check out some Central Asian countries; not as frequented, but supposedly very scenic and not touristy.

#3: If I were in your position I'd pick this one... Turkey sounds like it has some amazing sites, and I've heard great things about Iran (no matter what the situation is). From Iran you could probably go into Central Asia, and if your money lasts, you could possibly do #2 in reverse.

Thank god this isn't a usual where should I go question and you actually have done a little reading first!

Frankly all three are fantastic options and you will not be disapointed whichever you choose. Your 'likes' are pretty standard though, you can get scenery, outdoors, adventure and culture in any and all of these countries. I would think carefully about a) your interests and b) what you want to do on your trip to help you decide. If you want to sit in a hammock on a tropical beach there isn't much point going to Pakistan, but if you have a huge interst in biblical archaeology Iran and the Middle East are amazing.

Personally having been to all of these places and more, the route I would go back to in a heartbeat is Singapore then through SE Asia. I love the region with a passion for many, many reasons, but that is my own personal choice.

To answer your cons about SE Asia though, yes there are 'easy' and 'touristy' parts, but you can also go off the beaten track a little too. Try the North East of Thailand (Isan through to Laos for example) or parts of Indonesia or Borneo.

$10,000 (I am assuming US?) is a fair budget too for the region for 6 plus months, depending how frugally you travel.

Well you asked for personal opinions but I don't see how that will help you. I have no interest in SEA at all, so what. I'd pick Turkey from that list, but again, so what? My personal opinion really isn't going to help you Pisaster.

You appear to have done your homework, know what your interests are and have previous travel experience. You just can't decide which apparently. Here's an idea. Flip a coin. I'm not joking. Here's why.

Whenever someone has a choice to make and can't decide, flipping a coin will give you the answer every time. When the coin is in the air and about to land, what happens is you realize as it is falling which way you want it to land !!!!

You don't even have to look to see how it lands. You know which choice you really want.

Agree with mike...all 3 are good picks,and your likes are too general to choose one.

If you have little/no travel experience (I guess you don't if you have never been to SE Asia..that is a standard trip for most travellers) then i'd go with number one.

Save the other options for later when you have more experience.....and more idea of precisely what you want/don't want from your trip.

BTW as mentioned above....if you find the standard SE Asia banana pancake train too easy/touristy...you can get off that cheaply and simply at any time.

I've been to places in Indonesia,Cambodia and even Thailand where you will not see another European/American face in weeks or even months.....

Sorry OP i just saw that you have been in China ;-)

Umm, no experience in SEA hardly indicates little/no travel experience lucapal. It might just indicate more discerning taste in travel than the average 'banana pancake' traveller. ;-)

Actually it probably does.

I would guess that 99% of the people who post on here and have been to (say) over 50 countries have visited the region.

It is a 'starting' point for most people..not everyone,but the vast majority.

BTW your comment on the 'banana pancake' trail......if it wasn't you TiS,I'd say that it demonstrates a combination of snobbery and ignorance ;-)

How can you comment on a whole region (and the people that go there) if you have never been there yourself?

Have to agree with Lucapal here TIS, I consider myself well travelled having been to many regions over the years, including places far off the tourist map as well as the more traditional banana pancake places, and I wouldn't say those who have just visited SE Asia as having less discerning taste than myself (who has Iran, Mali, the Sudan and other places on my long list of destinations for example) or others who have been elsewhere too. Many people do head out to SE Asia their first time out, I did too, for many reasons. And you know what, I would head back to SE Asia time and again, I LOVE the region!

But hey, at least any backpacker is more discerning than the usual Benidorm package holiday crowd! Hahaha! (kidding lucapal! Kind of! ;D)

OK, OK, I suppose I was a bit tongue in cheek snobbish.

My point though is that while many people may decide to visit SEA for whatever reason, having done so or not done so means nothing in terms of how much travel experience a person might have.

"If you have little/no travel experience (I guess you don't if you have never been to SE Asia..that is a standard trip for most travellers)"

Perhaps you want to reconsider that statement lucapal.

To me it is clear.

If a person says to me that they are a big traveller..they love travelling...they live for travel (or however you want to word it) I would assume they had been to Thailand.Also to Paris,Spain and the places where nearly all travellers go,at some point if their travel lives!

That is what I mean by 'standard trips for most travellers'

It is of course possible that a person has been to Kazakhstan,Congo and Papua but never to Rome or New York...but it is rare.

Don't you agree?

I certainly do lucapal. Although there are obviously always going to be exceptions to the rule there are certain destinations that many backpackers flock to. I don't think this is always a bad thing, they are popular for a reason after all, but it is generally a safe assumption that most backpackers have been to Thailand, India, Australia, etc. TIS is right that any backpacker can be an experienced and well travelled, erm, traveller without being to these places, but I think the majority of us have at some point been there.

I've never been to Europe, aside from 5 days in Germany. I have done SEA, but that was after a year abroad in Japan and a trip through China... so by the time I got to SEA I was already a pretty seasoned traveller! I do agree that experienced travelers have a high tendency to have traveled to either SEA or Europe, although it certainly isn't the rule. Or at least, it wasn't as of 5-10 years ago in the case of SEA.

I don't think you can pick ANY area and say it is an indication or not an indication of someone who has a lot of travel experience. Quite simply, there are places where any individual is not interested in visiting. They differ by individual.

Look at it mathematically. Suppose there are 200 places. We decide that if someone has spent more than a week in each of 75 or more of them, we will consider that person well travelled. There will be no need to have gone to any particular place. Any 75 will do. Don't you agree?

To suggest that whether someone has gone to a specific area or not indicates they are well travelled is simply illogical. I could as easily say if you have not travelled Africa from north to south, you are not well travelled. There's no difference. Just because the 'pancake trail' is popular with low budget travellers doesn't mean someone who travels to other places isn't well travelled.

Frankly, in my opinion the reason why SEA is so popular is primarily because of cost. More people can affford to visit there than can afford to visit the Maldives or the French Polynesians. But neither makes one traveller more experienced than the other.

That assumes that statistically there is the same possibility/probability that a person will go to any of the 2000 places.

That is obviously not true though.

There are surely more tourists in Paris at any one time than have ever been to Chad (or will ever go there).

It is not a question of a traveller being more adventurous,'better', or 'worse'....it is simply logical that the more popular a place is,the more likely an experienced traveller wll have gone there at some point in their life.

That assumes that 'popular' means anything to the individual traveller. While it is logical to say that a higher percentage of all travellers have been to Paris rather than Chad, it is not logical to assume that if any individual traveller has not been to Paris, that individual is not well travelled.

You can say more travellers have been to Paris than to Chad but you cannot say a traveller who has not been to Paris is not well travelled.

False logic is very common. Jack wears a hat, Jack is a man, all men wear hats. That is in effect that you are saying lucapal. Jack has been to SEA, Jack is well travelled, all well travelled people have been to SEA.

That is a jump that cannot be made.

If i had said all,then that would be true.

I didn't.

I said that if someone is well travelled,the probablitity is that he has been to Paris.

If someone has never been to Paris,the probablity is that he has not been to Chad either.

"If you have little/no travel experience (I guess you don't if you have never been to SE Asia..that is a standard trip for most travellers)"

That is what you wrote. You made the assumption that someone who has not been to SEA is not well travelled.

If you had wrote, 'a well travelled person has probably been to SEA based on the simple laws of probability', that would be a correct assumption. But that is not what you wrote.

In, 'a well travelled person has probably been to SEA, the key work is 'probably'. It does not say that to be well travelled is dependent on having been to SEA. It allows for someone being well travelled and not having been to SEA.

What you originally wrote lucapal does not allow for that. Technically you could argue that your use of the word 'guess' allows for it. But what you were implying by what you wrote is quite clear. Haven't been to SEA, you're not well travelled. Plain and simple and incorrect.

Okay guys, shouldn't we agree to disgaree or generally agree on a general theme? ;D

I want to go to Chad now
are there plants in Chad
off to google

I think we agree on the general theme mike ;-)

That is...most people who have travelled a lot have been to SE Asia (though not all).This is just a semantic discussion of the meaning of ''I guess'' and ''most travellers''...obviously for me and for TiS they have different meanings....

lucapal and I agree 97% of the time mike. This is just a side discussion to liven things ups a little.

The OP got all the responses s/he is likely to get in the first few comments. In general all 3 choices are fine. What more is there to say.

Fair enough, just making sure I didn't have to start humming the rocky theme and being a ref! ;D

I'm just trying to improve lucapal's command of the English language and the tenets of logic. Of course he doesn't see it that way. I could agree with him to end it but then we would both be wrong. ;-)

So go ahead mike jump in. What is your take on our logic discussion. Is it correct to say, "If you have little/no travel experience (I guess you don't if you have never been to SE Asia..that is a standard trip for most travellers)", thus irrevocably linking well travelled to having been to SEA.

It is not fair really....TiS is speaking in his mother tongue (I think...assuming he is not from Quebec) while I am in my second language (nearly third actually...I've been travelling so much in Central/South America in the last couple of years that my Spanish is overtaking my English ;-)

lets even the field and try and argue in cantonese or singlish! haha!

im generally with lucapal tis, whilst i agree it is not a prerequisite for any well travelled backpacker to have visited SE asia or ANY country for that matter to be considered well travelled, i think statistically the majority of those who would be considered well travelled will have at some point been through at least part of se asia. thailand for example is well known as a popular first time destination for many backpackers.

No, no, mike you cannot say you are 'generally' with lucapal and then go on to contradict yourself.

Lucapal connected SEA and well travelled. If you agree with him then you cannot write, "i agree it is not a prerequisite for any well travelled backpacker to have visited SE asia" That is the exact opposite of what lucapal wrote.

Which countries or areas get the highest numbers of tourists is irrelevant to any statement about who is considered well travelled. Many well travelled people will have been to SEA, so what? More well travelled people will have been to SEA than have not is even reasonable to say but so what? One is not a prerequisite as you yourself say mike, for the other.

Lucapal wrote (in effect) that SEA was a prerequisite to being well travelled. If I wrote, 'I gess you aren't well travelled mike as you have never been to Paris', it would be the same thing.

This has turned into an interesting digression haha!

Thank you all for your input and advice. I've booked the flight to Istanbul! I think that's where my intuition was all along despite second guessing myself.

One thing I notice often in these kinds of threads is that people don't see the value in personal opinions and "what would you do?" hypotheticals. I was interested in why people might choose one place over another and how that lines up or conflicts with my own preconceptions, etc. I think it's unfair to dismiss my interest in opinions as though I am fundamentally misguided in asking for them.

On the "well-travelled" note: I think part of the reason I considered Southeast Asia as an option was precisely because it carries that connotation as a world-traveller standard destination. I doubt I would have regretted choosing to go there, but I don't have the same urge to go there like I do for the other options. I have been to 22 countries and 3 continents, but I don't feel particularly well-travelled for whatever that's worth. I do, however, feel reasonably competent as a backpacker.

Thanks again!

Hope you enjoy your trip,,both Turkey and Iran are great destinations IMHO.Sorry if we digressed a lot!

I think on the 'personal opinions'...that is exactly why people don't generally answer these ''what would you do'?'' type questions in the way that a poster expects......everyone is different,everyone has different opinions and experiences and anyone who has travelled a fair bit finds it difficult/impossible to say what is ''better'' or worse'' (even for themselves,never mind someone that they have never met!)

Also...as mike mentioned...your 'likes' were very standard.It is a lot easy to suggest a place if they are very specific....

As noted, personal opinions only apply to the person. If you knew the person and had reason to value their opinion then yes, asking for their personal opinion would make sense. But to ask strangers for their personal opinion really doesn't get you anywhere.

Bear in mind that most regular posters here on the TT are individualists. They prefer independent travel for a reason. Frankly, I don't care what any of them think of a given country and would never ask them for their opinion of a place I was considering visiting. I make up my own mind. In the end, that is what you have now done yourself, regardless of any opinions expressed here.

What I would listen to however is their specific knowledge of a place and anything specific about it. So for example, if I asked, Can anyone give me the name of a hostel they have stayed in in Istanbul?' I would accept their answer. But I would never ask, 'where can I find the best hostel in town?' Objective vs. subjective. No one is going to give me the name of a hostel they didn't like in answer to the first question are they.

Enjoy your trip Pisaster and don't hesitate to ask any objective questions you might not be able to find answers to for yourself. That's where the TT cannot be beat.

no, I don't agree Lucapal… you seem like a boring "standard traveler" I wish more people with out of the box travel experience would reply to these posts, maybe then they'd be worth joining in and trying to help the person asking for it.

You don't agree with what?

And what the hell is a 'boring standard traveller'?

Having read back this thread (it was a while ago) I wrote that...most well-travelled people have been to SE Asia.And that it is an easy place to start.Also that there is no fixed 'better' or 'worse' destination-it depends on the individual.

Which of these do you disagree with?

Joey Alan..signed up just to post that,and never heard from again ;-)