Ryan Larson: The Camino vs. the Appalachian Trail
Until I saw the map of the trails and heard all the stories Prof. Reddick told today about the Camino De Santiago, I hadn't realized the scope of it. 'Trail' isn't a apt descriptor-- it's an entire network of roads, businesses, and other entities all working in harmony for the public benefit. Though I have never done it, it seems to me like hiking those European trails is a very different experience to hiking American trails such as the Appalachian Trail. I think that because Europe is much older and has more town density than America, their trails are able to be much more accessible for hikers. Coming here form the Shenendoah Valley, for instance, you'll pass through miles upon miles of unpopulated forest-- far too much to hike without stopping the night. I've always heard the AT described as a test of endurance, while the Camino seems much more relaxed and open. I could be wrong, though, as I've never done it.
Another difference that I perceive is the original purpose of the trails. The AT started off as, and has always been, a recreational activity. Nobody takes the trail to actually travel somewhere-- it's impractically slow, and you can't tale anything with you. The Camino, on the other hand, started semi-organically in the time when foot travel was actually the main form of transportation. Because it was an actual route taken by pilgrims, the Camino will probably pass through many more towns than the AT-- the AT, after all, isn't expecting hikers to be looking for a place to settle down and live.
This difference in origin is likely why (from what I can tell) the Camino generally has roads that are wider and easier to traverse than the AT. It was originally used for ease of travel, not to prove one's hiking ability. The AT, on the other hand, has no reason not to be physically demanding, or perhaps even intentionally difficult.
I don't have much else to say, I just thought I'd compare the two trails.
Comments
Post a Comment