|
Posted by: Aaron on 2010-03-13, 08:16:16
I been to both. There are 2 big things you need to think about that I feel sums each up equally. History and Nature. I enjoy both so both destinations were fun for me. Alaska was more recent, been twice, and they were both Salmon fishing trips. If you go for a specific reason like fishing Alaska is totally incredible. If it is just a sight seeing trip it is still beautiful but after a few days I could see it getting a little boring. If you go on a cruise or on a guided trip though that shouldn't be a problem. The best thing to do is find the local little towns like Kenai, Homer, or Seward and get some of the fresh seafood. Oh man, so awesome! On the other side is you have the UK which has much more history and big city exploration. Obviously it is old... So getting to go to the museums, castles, towers, etc were a highlight for me. Also if you have freedom (not with a travel group) you can hop on the chunnle and be in Paris in a couple of hours. There is quite a bit of night life available (if that's what you like) so there is always plenty to do. I enjoy a good pub so there is no lack of those over there... There are some must sees like Buckingham, The Tower of London, Big Ben Clock Tower, etc and one of the best ways to do that (other than a paid group thing) is to find a taxi driver that you can hire for the day (most will do this) and have them drive you around showing you stuff. Pretty neat and they know they best places to eat! I guess it ultimately comes down to the type of person you are. Would you rather walk in the big city soaking up history or hike to a glacier and see some of North America's most beautiful landscapes. Both are great, but very different. My wife couldn't care less about Alaska but is about to pull my leg off for a trip to Ireland... Also to consider is cost. UK prices are a lot higher than the US now... So keep that in mind as well. Also there will be a lot more costs in general in the UK. So there you have it. My thoughts. |
