3 ms·
60+ is potentially an overstatement depending on when you start. More importantly, 193 countries in 60 years is less than four months per country. I'm not sur
by obviouslygreen 14y ago
60+ is potentially an overstatement depending on when you start.
More importantly, 193 countries in 60 years is less than four months per country. I'm not sure how much traveling you've done, but travel arrangements take planning; so does lodging, depending on where you're going (less-populated or less tourism-friendly countries can be an issue regarding where to stay if you haven't figured it out beforehand). Also, visa requirements can be very complex, and obtaining one can be both time-consuming and expensive, depending on how many fees or bribes (yes, in eastern Europe and some other places, this can be anywhere between helpful and necessary) are involved.
While you're right that relaxing would be the only way to handle this without going totally insane, that definitely won't make it a nice, leisurely trip. There is work involved, and a lot of it, much of it intellectually taxing.
- apendleton 14y agoFour months per country would be the average, but the distribution wouldn't be equal like that, especially because I doubt anyone trying to do this would plan a separate trip for each country. If you wanted to, you could fairly easily fly into somewhere in the Schengen zone, get a rail pass, and do all 26 countries in the zone in a couple of months' time, without any visas, and staying in hostels you booked along the way. The only planning you'd need to do would be to book airfare, and that would give you a fair bit more wiggle room for the rest of the world.
- chiph 14y agoAlso, planning & travel can go on concurrently, given cellphone coverage in an area. So if you were a schoolteacher with summers off, you could spend 2-3 months traveling in closely-connected countries. Leaving you 9 months to de-stress with a room full of 14 year olds. :)