I recently visited Alaska on a cruise and several ports and honestly it’s one of the most beautiful places I’ve been to.
I have visited Scandinavia before but on really short trips as well, but I was not overwhelmed. Why I always see people saying Scandinavia is much more beautiful? Am I missing something?
17 comments
Did you go to the cruise destinations in Scandinavia?
> Why I always see people saying Scandinavia is much more beautiful?
*Much more* beautiful? Who the heck told you that? I have never heard such a wacky claim.
With that said, where in Scandinavia? Norway certainly lives up to the hype, unless all you saw was Oslo. As for the rest of Scandinavia and Finland, it’s basically the Upper Midwest. Pretty enough, lots of water and trees, hilly in places, but not mindblowing.
Spent a short time in both, and both have a lot of natural beauty.
It’s bigger.
I’ve never heard anyone compare the natural beauty of Scandinavian countries and Alaska. Who says Scandinavia is more beautiful? Or Alaska for that matter?
They’re both cold places with long and interesting coastlines. Are they supposed to have anything else in common?
Odd comparison
Scandinavia has more “non-nature” activities while Alaska is more wild.
Like if you wanted to, you could go somewhere in Alaska that the closest person is probably in the International Space station above. Scandinavia has more cities. Both have strict alcohol laws.
Are you pining for the fjords?
More fjords in Scandinavia.
> “Did you ever go to a place…I think it was called Norway?”
>”No,” said Arthur, “no, I didn’t.”
>”Pity,” said Slartibartfast, “that was one of mine. Won an award, you know. Lovely crinkly edges. I was most upset to hear of its destruction.”
—*The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy*, by Douglas Adams
south east Alaska is somewhat comparable to the fjords of Norway, roughly stretching from Seward in the north all the way south. this is the only area that you will find any historic looking building from the late 1800s, and early 1900s. the interior of Alaska Is very different from Scandinavia, it is more similar to the landscape of eastern Siberia.
Alaska’s mountains are certainly much larger. Otherwise this just seems like a personal preference, how would you quantify this? They’re both beautiful places.
Acreage-wise, Alaska has more natural beauty than Scandinavia.
As an American, I’m morally obligated to ascribe to the philosophy that bigger is better. Therefor, Alaska is more beautiful than Scandinavia.
However, Siberia is bigger than Alaska and is also known for its natural beauty. So I’m afraid that by that same bigger is better philosophy, the US is losing to Russia.
I haven’t visited any of these places but I’d love to see all of them.
Cold, oil, dangerous wildlife
I’ve been to Alaska, Sweden and Norway. Norway lives up to the hype. Sweden is nice, but not comparable to Norway or Alaska. Everyone will have a different take though.
Alaska is colder and windier by a fairly large margin.
Naturally speaking, we have a lot more wetlands. Like a LOT more wetlands, almost 44% of Alaska’s total land area is wetlands. Most people think of coastal rainforests and snow-capped mountains, but in reality Alaska is a giant swamp more akin to Siberia than Norway.