Machu Pichu Or Patagonia

[IJumpedAboardAPirateShip]

Am trying to figure out a trip to do for DH’s 40th next year and Peru or Chile are at the top of the list. We do love to travel with the children though so initial problem is to decide on which to do without them (would be a trip just the two of us)

Would obviously love to do both, looking at various website and am a bit overwhelmed by the tour info for MP - we tend towards Independant travel on the whole but haven’t ever organised a trek like this ourselves. My DH is an introvert so a big group tour thing with strangers would be the opposite of his cup of tea.

Any initial thoughts from anyone who’s been to one or both?! If we’re lucky we can do 10 days away I reckon and I’d love to go actually for his birthday which is late March but I know MP we’d be better off waiting until May.

FWIW we live in the west coast of the the states and would fly my parents out to look after DC

I’ve been to both, and both were amazing experiences - but would probably rate Chile more highly. It was more chilled, less tourist treadmill, and the scenery and hiking was the best I’ve been to. We were in Torres del Paine. We also went to Easter Island, which tops my experiences list, but I’d wanted to go there since a small child!

Yeah I’m leaning towards Chile because I feel like doing that with the kids might be a way off and frankly maybe less interesting to them than Peru? There’s something about the wildness of Patagonia that appeals to us both but I also want to plan it as a surprise...

Did you DIY your trip?

I would choose Patagonia. You could also zigzag over the border a bit quite easily that far south. The buses and routes are decent. El Calafate is the other side of the border to Chile I think? Could do a glacier walk of some description. And then there's a penguin colony at Punta Arenas? Or you could quite easily spend the entire ten days in Torres for Paine. Depends what you want to do really.

How far south are you thinking? Ushuaia?

Peru can be really challenging with altitude sickness, which if you only have ten days could ruin most of your trip if either or both of you were unlucky and really suffered (even if not dangerously ill).

I’ve been to both. Peru might be better with DC in my view. Also it’s an excellent destination for the school summer holidays. We went in August and it was perfect. You can hike the Inca Trail. There are day hikes too. The main thing about Peru is variation. Cusco, the Sacred Valley, Arequipa, Lake Titicaca and Colca Canyon (to name just a few places) are fantastic, as is the Amazon basin you can visit for rainforest wildlife.

Patagonia is vast. Less child friendly in my opinion. You have the W hike in Chile. There are also glaciers and you can get across to Argentina. I would say though that you need to think about where you will fly to and where you will fly home from.

I would invest in Lonely Planet books to plan this. You would be going to a remote area and flying down there takes a long time. Obviously you can start in Chile and end up in Argentina. But you would need to plan your route. We were there in April and the weather was very changeable! Feeezing rain one day and snow the next. March would be vital if you are hiking. Not May!

We have also been to Easter island I do recommend that experience.

Yes. El Calafate is Argentina. Ushuaia is also Argentina. The glaciers are worth seeing though.

Yeah Easter Island is another thought - I know that ups the cost substantially but is therefore a probably for a childfree trip as there are only half of us to pay for!

Thanks for advice so far, I’ll look more deeply into Chile because yeah Peru feels like a shame for the D.C. to miss out on

Torres del Paine and especially Easter Island are amazing.

The very south of Patagonia is not worth the long trek down there in my opinion.

I haven’t been to chile. But Peru with kids would be fabulous.

We are ending our Antarctic, Falklands, South Georgia exploration in Ushuaia so we will find out! I think it’s a bit bleak. The more well known areas are better for a reason.

Not been to Patagonia but did Machu Picchu in 2006. Compared to friends who went last year there are far more restrictions in place to visit the site now. I'd be factoring future potential restrictions into my decision making, i.e., if you didn't go now, would you be in a position to do the trip next year or in 5 years.