Please sign in to post.

Bordeaux - should I go?

I am planning to basically follow Rick's itinerary all around France this summer for almost a month. Since Rick's itinerary is based on three weeks, I have a bit of extra time to add other towns to the trip or linger in my favorite places.

As I am planning, I am wondering about why Rick left Bordeaux out of his 3 week whirlwind itinerary of France. He recommends going from the Loire Valley to Dordogne to Carcassonne, completely skipping Bordeaux. I looked at Lonely Planet and they only recommended giving it about 12 hours.

I don't want to miss anything great, but if I will get the same vibe in other regions, I'm okay with skipping it. Any thoughts? Did Rick do a big disservice to his followers by skipping Bordeaux or is he right? Should I go and if so, what must I see there?

Thanks!

Posted by
8166 posts

It is foolish to only go by what one person says about where to travel.
Bordeaux is worth a stop. I've been there twice most recently last January.
I really like the wine museum and the cathedral is unique worth a look.

Posted by
28085 posts

I haven't been to Bordeaux myself, but it's on my list for a trip to western France, probably in 2019. Why do I say "western France"? Because I spent 89 days in France last year and saw only the eastern part of the country, not even including Paris.

Based on my travel style, you won't be surprised that I want to caution you about taking Rick's 3-week itinerary and adding additional places to it just because you have 4 weeks. His itineraries are extremely fast-paced, seemingly designed for Americans with very limited vacation time. You have a bit more time, so you don't have to rush so much. Rick's car itinerary allows a whopping one day plus maybe a few hours for Provence and three days in Paris. The train itinerary allows just two real days (plus the marginal value of some hours on your arrival day) in Paris. A look at Rick's own guidebook will show you how much you are going to miss.

In the unlikely event that you find a particular spot only deserves as much time as Rick suggests, there is almost always a nearby town (accessibly by bus or train if you don't have a car) that is worth seeing. In Normandy and the eastern edge of Brittany I enjoyed all these places that don't figure in Rick's itineraries: Rouen, Deauville, Cabourg, Dinard, Rennes, Vitre, and Fougeres. I reached them all by train or bus, albeit not at a pace consistent with Rick's itineraries.

Another thing to consider is how tiring it is to change hotels every night or two. I believe there are 12 hotels on that 21-day itinerary. It's one thing when you're on a bus tour that is going to whisk you directly from Hotel 1 to Hotel 2 (and allow you to sleep if you want to). It's a whole different story when you have to navigate yourself in a rental car or must spend not-so-quality time in train and bus stations. That pace would be draining for 10 days. Keeping it up for 4 weeks is not a recipe for a particularly pleasant vacation.

In sum: Before adding additional hotel stops, I urge you to read about the places already on the itinerary and figure out how much time you'll want in each one. Setting aside the question of Paris (how much time there is a key decision, and there's massive room for variation), If I had 28 nights in France, I would stay in no more than 8 or 9 places at the most. It would be fewer if I were visiting Paris for the first time, because that would suck up quite a lot of time.

Posted by
11294 posts

Acraven beat me to it. In four weeks, even if you wanted to see everything Rick recommends on his three week itinerary and nothing else instead, I'd add more time to his destinations rather than adding more additional destinations. Rick's itineraries are too fast-paced for me to keep up for 3-4 weeks straight, and even he says you should allow some slack time to rest, do laundry, etc.

Posted by
551 posts

I agree with previous writers that Rick Steves' books are certainly not comprehensive and, in my opinion, do not always highlight the "best" or most interesting places to visit. It's basically one man's opinion, and while he is a very experienced traveler and guide, he is writing for a diverse audience of relatively inexperienced tourists. I would strongly recommend that you prune back your travel plans for France so that you choose fewer stops. The constant moving from one stop to another is exhausting and, for my taste, very unsatisfying. Plus, it uses too much time and money to constantly check in and out of your accommodations and race to the train station or drive to another site. Select places you really want to visit and take the time to immerse yourself in them. If well-chosen, a stop can be "home base" from which you make short day trips to places that you want to see.

Understand that no matter how fast you move from site to site, you absolutely will miss places that are wonderful, but you will have a much richer experience in the places that you take time to thoroughly explore. Think of France as a huge smorgasbord. You could take a tiny taste of every offering and end up feeling a bit stuffed and not enjoying anything, or you could select fewer things that look good to you and really savor them.

Posted by
3442 posts

My thoughts:

Some day I would like to spend at least two full days in Bordeaux for touring St. Emilion and Medoc.

Some of my favorite places in Europe were barely mentioned in RS guidebooks - or else they got one triangle or a "skippable" comment. I still love the RS books for their practical information on navigating major cities - but I know that my tastes and interests don't always completely align with those of the RS writers.