KHTravelBitten

Hi,

We're looking at planning for our honeymoon which would be in early July. We have been able to narrow potential destinations down to one of the Azores Islands or one of the Greek Islands. We would be looking for a place to relax near the beach, and fitting in activities around that, but rest and relaxation is the priority.

For folks that have been to either region, any thoughts on pros/cons of each?

WorldLux

The Azores have a more steady climate: Temperature remain relatively high during the winter months but don't climb too much in the summer. There are on average more days with rain. Temperatures in Greece on the other hand will be very high with little or no rain.

Personally I'd pick Greece over the Azores. YMMV

dcmike

First, congratulations on your upcoming marriage! I would also say which Greek Island you pick will drastically alter your experience. Santorini and Mykonos will be crowded already in July with a lot of tourists. Islands like Rhodes or Crete can give you both a taste of Greek history as well as a beach resort experience. The Ionian islands will be green, while the Cycladic islands will be very dry. There are small islands where you can have a more "authentic" experience. Which islands are you looking at?

Palal

Azores are awesome for hiking on green islands, wine tasting, beautiful and a few other things, but beaches are almost nonexistent. There are places to swim in the sea and water in July should be warm, but no sandy beaches to speak of (with a couple of exceptions). Weather in July should be nice, but you can get four seasons in the same day, depending on where you are. Outside of S.Miguel, the number of tourists is very low. Getting around requires a car (taxis are available, but not cheap). Between the two, it sounds like you want a beach vacation, and Azores are not it.

david55

I agree with Mike....we would need to know the Greek island to give you a good answer.

KHTravelBitten

Thanks dcmike, and others for your help. As far as the Greek Islands we are considering, it would be Santorini (no surprise there), but then from your description, and what I've been seeing online, I think Rhodes sounds very interesting, so let's focus on these 2. We might spend a few days on one of these islands, and then spend the rest in the other island. Total duration for our trip would likely be 1-1.5 weeks.

david55

I think I would be inclined to pick an island that is not a frequent cruise ship destination. Santorini is spectacular but would be hot, windy, and as crowded as a rush hour subway in July unless you were squired away in one of the top hotels. It's interesting....you don't hear many people talking about Rhodes. I know Crete very well and you can spend several weeks there easily as long as you stay away from the towns and beaches popular with tour groups.

dcmike

I personally like Rhodes a lot - Rhodes town has a great medieval feel, with its history with the crusaders, it's good for a day or two. Outside of Rhodes town, there are some large resorts where you can get good beach time. And there is always Lindos, which has a beautiful beach, a great winding Greek-town feel, and then an ancient acropolis up above.

dulciusexasperis

Santorini is what I refer to as 'one of the usual suspects'. Places most people have heard of and most tourists visit. Usually these are also the places I tend to avoid.

I live 2 hours from Niagara Falls and every time we have visitors, they want to go there. We take them as we must but each time it is pretty much an anticlimax. Yes, it is a Wonder of the World, yes, if you're that close you should see it, but no, it will probably not be the real highlight of your trip. There simply isn't all that much to see and do. Or as I like to say about Niagara, how long can you stand fascinated by watching water fall off a rock?

Santorini is another such place to me. It is a very small island which while very picturesque, is very crowded and has limited things to see and do. That it is a major draw for tourists is simply because it is beautiful to look at for 5 minutes. So if you are going to divide your time (which I do not recommend at all) then give it the short straw.

Rhodes or Crete on the other hand are larger and have much more for the visitor to see and do. I lived in Greece for some time and went to Rhodes planning to spend perhaps 7 days on the island. I stayed for 7 years. So obviously, I am prejudiced in where I would suggest spending all of your short time available.

One of the best guides to Greece is this one: Matt Barrett's Guide to Rhodes, Greece Mr. Barrett gives you real info on each area covered.

If "rest and relaxation" is truly the priority rather than crowds, shopping and nightclubs, then you might like to look at Haraki on Rhodes. It is my favourite village to stay in when I return to visit the island. Here is a little write up on it. Haraki, Rhodes, Greece. You can find plenty of other info with a Google search.

Interestingly, I put Lindos (which dcmike has mentioned) in the 'usual suspects' category. Nice to visit for a morning, not a place to stay. In the evenings and mornings, it is relatively uncrowded but once the dozens of tour buses start arriving from all other parts of the island around mid-morning, it becomes very crowded and busy. The narrow winding streets are wall to wall with people and every imaginable kind of tourist kitsch shop line those streets. The beach is tiny by comparison to other beaches and also crowded. I've also heard of many tourists complaining about the heat in high summer. Lindos is actually like the bottom of a bowl with the heat trapped in it. Some tourists who have stayed in small unairconditioned hotels there have been known to go in tears to their tour company representative begging to be moved to somewhere else on the island, where they can sleep at night without the heat. No air conditioning is a common issue in Greece. So be careful where you choose to stay.

dulciusexasperis

I should have mentioned that one of the reasons Haraki is my favourite village on the island is because it has the only car free pedestrian only promenade along the seafront. You can see it in this video which is from my favourite place to stay in the village. I have no connection other than as a satisfied customer.

david55

I have to say I agree with dulciusexasperis with one exception. Santorini. It is everything he says it is. I was there in 1969 and then again in 2009. In 1969 there was only one hotel..... 2009...well. That said Santorini offers amazing jaw dropping scenery. Everyone should see it at least once in their life. I could sit for hours on a terrace looking at that caldera. And then wake up again the next morning and repeat my terrace sitting experience. At least for several days. I wouldn't cross it off your list because of the over abundance of tourists.....many of which are just there for the day off cruise ships..... pick a good hotel on the caldera and your experience and view will be one you never forget.

dulciusexasperis

I'm not sure just what your 'one exception' actually is david55. I compared Santorini to Niagara Falls. If you're nearby, then yes it is a 'must see'. I agree with what you say about sitting on a terrace overlooking the caldera. But my point is that if you have limited time as the OP does, then you have to weigh up the cost in time of getting there to see that view and then spending the rest of your time elsewhere. In this case, a day to get there and a day to go on to somewhere else.

So if you understand you correctly, you are saying that with the stated time limit of 1-1.5 weeks the OP has, you would consider spending say 1 day to get to Santorini; 2 days on the island; one day to leave and go somewhere else, for a total of 4 days out of 7-10 days as worth doing? That would be a large percentage of the total time. If I was that interested in Santorini, then I would have to suggest spending the entire time there or leaving it for another trip when I had more time to divide. Do you disagree with that? Would you split a week to 10 days like that?

Given the limited amount of time most people have for vacations, making 'best use' of that time is obviously important. It is not about whether 'seeing' Santorini is worth 'seeing', it is about whether it is worth using up time to get to/from it. If the OP had a month and wanted to spend 4 days to see Santorini, I'd say that was not unreasonable but 4 days out of 7-10 just to see the view is in my opinion unreasonable.

The way to get the most out of our time is to spend that time in places and not in between places. In that regard, in travel like many things, 'less is more'. The less we move, the more we see and do. With only 7-10 days, I would not be moving from one place to another at the cost of losing 2 days making the move. Assuming an arrival in Athens by mid-day, I would be on a flight to the island of my choice that same day and staying there until I needed to depart for my return home.

So would you take exception to saying that the OP should either spend all their time on Santorini or all of it somewhere else, rather than split their time? I'm fine with spending it all on Santorini if someone wants to but I wouldn't split such limited time and that was the message I was trying to give the OP to consider.

david55

It takes me at most a morning to get to Santorini going by air. ( including airport time and cab on Santorini to your hotel) So I believe your two days of travel time on either end are a bit overstated. That said......Clearly you have given this much more thought then I have

dulciusexasperis

I have given 'best use of time' for a traveller much thought indeed david55. Trying to cover too much in too little time is one of the two commonest mistakes that travellers make. The other is packing too much stuff.

The average N. American has 2 weeks of vacation time a year. Making the most of that time therefore should be a very high priority for any of them. The often expressed wish they have as a result of this is 'to see as much as possible.' Given how little time they have, that is entirely understandable. However, what people then do is confuse the word 'much' with the word 'many'. They are not synonymous. It is an issue of quality vs. quantity. Squeezing more places into a given amount of time does not result in seeing 'more' except in the most superficial sense of the word. If that were the real objective being expressed when someone says 'as much as possible', then the obvious answer would just to keep moving constantly and ticking names off a list. Perhaps you are familiar with the old 1969 movie, "If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium", which indicated someone visiting so many places in so little time that they could lose track of what country they were even in.

Obviously, the OP is not suggesting that kind of itinerary here but the principle remains constant. The less you move, the more you see and do.

A move from A to B may indeed only take an hour of actual travel time. But what about the time you spent packing your bag, checking out of a hotel, getting to the airport/train station, waiting for the flight/train, claiming your luggage, getting a taxi, checking in, orienting yourself to your new location, etc. All that time has to also be counted somewhere and it isn't counted in seeing/doing things in your new destination. It is lost time spent making the move.

Generally speaking, it takes the average person 3 days to 'suss out' or 'get to know' a place. That is to the degree that they feel they have a 'handle' on how things work, where to find what, etc. Often, they have just got to that point when they then move on. You have just found the perfect little family run restaurant where the food is great and they treat you like an honoured guest, and then you leave. We know the phrase, 'slow down and smell the roses' but we only pay it lip service at best.

My advice to travellers is to never spend less than 3 full days in a place. It is derived from the 'Rule of 3s' which in terms of travel says, 'never spend less than 3 full days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B. Note the 'less than', it is a minimum. Most people would agree for example that somewhere like Rome (if you are into visiting cities) really needs more than that to do it justice. Note the '3/4', that is to allow for travel time between places. A day on which you arrive in or depart from a place cannot be counted as time spent in either place. We could discuss whether or not you lose a full day but if you allow for a full day in your initial planning, it gives you a much better idea of how much time you will actually spend in places.

Most people first come up with a list of places they would like to visit, their 'wish list'. Then they take the time available and try to divide it among those places. Sometimes, they can't even get near to making it work but sometimes by planning 1 day or 2 days here and there, they think it can be done. Often, they allow no days at all for moving. Their 2 days in X is really at best 1.5 days with them losing at least a half day at the beginning or end of those 2 days. I have even seen itineraries where people count a day twice! That is, they count a day as being in A in the morning and in B in the afternoon/evening.

For example:
1 day Athens
2 days Santorini
4 days Crete

Total 7 days. Never mind the first day is an arrival day with the accompanying jet lag. The second day is spent moving to Santorini. The fourth day is spent moving to Crete. The seventh day is spent returning to Athens and catching their flight home. A total of 4 travel days out of 7, leaving only 3 full days actually spent anywhere. That's 3 out of 7, less than half their total time!

Instead of taking a wish list and then cutting the pie into small pieces, none of which is big enough to be worth eating, I suggest people take the opposite approach. First take the time available and then using the Rule of 3s, decide how many places you have time to visit. To do that you first remove the arrival and departure days from your total time and then you divide the remaining time by 4(count nights not days). So in a week, you have 7-2= 5 which obviously you don't even need to divide by 4 to see that you do not have enough time to even visit 2 places. With 2 weeks, it's 14-2 divided by 4 which gets you a maximum of 3 places possible. Ten days will allow for 2 places but only just and you have to ask whether it is worth losing 1 whole day making the move between them. One day in 10 is 10% of your total time. Arrival and departure days are another 20%. Thinking in terms of percentages often gives you a different perspective. Do you really want to spend 30% of your 10 days total, on 'travel days'? Making a move when you have 20 days total it would only be 5% per day. When you have 30 days, it is only 3.3% per day. So obviously, the more time you have in total, the less it costs you in percentage of time to make a move between places. I personally try to keep total travel days down to 20% of my total time or less. I'm not willing to give up time that could actually be spent in a place seeing and doing things, just to add quantity.

We are all different as they say and we all have our own ways of looking at travel but sometimes I think people don't actually 'think' about it at all, they just do what they are conditioned to do. We live in a fast paced world where 'more' is always better, but we think 'more' refers only to quantity. We all wish there were 'more hours in the day' (or days of vacation time) but often don't ask ourselves if we are making best use of the hours there are. The reality is there will never be more hours in the day but most people could make better use of the hours they have.

yurtripper

Great post, dulciusexasperis!

Even though I've travelled long enough to appreciate the wisdom of what you're saying, I've often committed the same sins myself, even on a RTW where I had up to 2 years of travel time ahead of me.

I remember meeting a crazy guy from S. Korea while staying at a hostel in Christchurch, NZ. The guy told me he had visited South America during his 10-day vacation (he used his entire annual vacation allowance in a single trip, which is unusual for Koreans). That meant he had a maximum of 8 days actual time spent in S. America, and during his time there he claimed to have visited NINE countries. That guy must have learnt an awful lot about what South American airports are like!