I'll be in Thailand for six weeks from the start of November. Though I'm sure my plans will change a bit along the way, I'm trying to put together a tentative itinerary, based on what is only slightly more than a backpacker budget (for the basics anyway, accommodation, food, local area transportation - got a decent chunk of money set away for entertainment).
So far I've booked six days in Bangkok. After that I think I'll head north to Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, possibly staying up to two weeks if I like it there (too long if I don't plan on spending too much money on a slew of guided tours around the area, but only a few?).
Then I'm still trying to figure out if there's anything particularly worth seeing in central Thailand? Erawan National Park sounds like it's good for a daytrip - but then I don't know if it actually stands out from what I'll already have seen of the northern nature, and I suspect I'll be tempted to see the Pattaya depravity first hand for a few days. Other than that I'm not sure if there's anything else I absolutely must visit before I head south.
As far as the south goes, I'm currently set on possibly skipping the east coast and just spending a couple of weeks - or whatever is left of my time by then - on the west coast. Phuket sounds quite expensive in high season (would probably break my average daily accommodation and food budget, based on the prices I've found even for cheap rooms), not to mention that I'm not 25 anymore (38th birthday in Bangkok) so I think slightly more peace and quiet would be preferable for a good portion of the time.
I'm thinking the Krabi area - Ao Nang and the surrounding beaches - might be a good choice? And then some days to visit possibly Ko Phi Phi, Ko Lanta and possibly a couple of days in Phuket at the end if I feel like it.
Are the east coast islands different enough - in a positive way - from the west coast islands, that a visit to Ko Samui should be almost mandatory for a fairly long trip like mine? If it's just another interchangeable place to watch 20 year olds stumble around drunk and high, I'm sure I can live without.
So far I've booked six days in Bangkok. After that I think I'll head north to Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, possibly staying up to two weeks if I like it there (too long if I don't plan on spending too much money on a slew of guided tours around the area, but only a few?).
Then I'm still trying to figure out if there's anything particularly worth seeing in central Thailand? Erawan National Park sounds like it's good for a daytrip - but then I don't know if it actually stands out from what I'll already have seen of the northern nature, and I suspect I'll be tempted to see the Pattaya depravity first hand for a few days. Other than that I'm not sure if there's anything else I absolutely must visit before I head south.
As far as the south goes, I'm currently set on possibly skipping the east coast and just spending a couple of weeks - or whatever is left of my time by then - on the west coast. Phuket sounds quite expensive in high season (would probably break my average daily accommodation and food budget, based on the prices I've found even for cheap rooms), not to mention that I'm not 25 anymore (38th birthday in Bangkok) so I think slightly more peace and quiet would be preferable for a good portion of the time.
I'm thinking the Krabi area - Ao Nang and the surrounding beaches - might be a good choice? And then some days to visit possibly Ko Phi Phi, Ko Lanta and possibly a couple of days in Phuket at the end if I feel like it.
Are the east coast islands different enough - in a positive way - from the west coast islands, that a visit to Ko Samui should be almost mandatory for a fairly long trip like mine? If it's just another interchangeable place to watch 20 year olds stumble around drunk and high, I'm sure I can live without.