Where can I go to see THE ALPS?
I don't mean "a couple of tall mountains", I mean the cataclysmic peaks and valleys that inspired Disney. I mean snow-capped mountains and glaciers in the middle of July. I mean 2 frickin log cabin houses as the only form of civilization. And most importantly, I want to be ON TOP of such a mountain, not just looking at it from afar.
The alps are such a big mountain range, so I originally thought I could go pretty much anywhere in middle Europe to see them. I was wrong. I've been everywhere from Alsace to southern Germany to northern Switzerland to Voralberg and at best I've seen kinda-large hills.The closest I got was Hallstatt, Austria, which was nice, but even that was touristy and not super high.
Are the peaks and valleys I want to see basically confined to Jungfrauhoch and Lauterbrunnen? Or is there more to it?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>Are the peaks and valleys I want to see basically confined to Jungfrauhoch and Lauterbrunnen? Or is there more to it?
The highest peaks in Switzerland are around Dufourspitze, in Canton Valais/Wallis; there’s also the Matterhorn, of course, which is iconic but shorter. Good views of both of the above available from Zermatt, among other towns. But Zermatt is a ski resort, so mostly neither remote or especially rustic.
>from Alsace to southern Germany to northern Switzerland to Voralberg
In all of the above, you’re too far north. The Alps are at their highest in the southernmost parts of this country.
But the mountains in Switzerland, and to an only slightly lesser extent in adjacent bits of neighboring countries, have been populated for millennia and developed for centuries. Places get preserved in something resembling their older forms to satisfy tourists and some local nostalgics, but almost nobody really lives much of a remote mountain lifestyle anymore. Some herders who still bring cows up and down the mountains seasonally might come close, but they all have trucks and cellphones.
Thanks for the responses so far, very helpful. I'm surprised that so many people mention France, I really thought the alps were primarily Germanic and only slightly dipped into France and Italy. I'll likely consider the Chamonix/Valais region on my next trip.
>if you don't have outstanding cardio and know how to handle crampons, ice axe and a rope you will not stand on too of the highest mountains.
So you're telling me that none, not a single one of these tall mountains has a cable car or easily accessible hiking trail that goes to or near the top?
Europe’s highest peak, Mont Blanc is between France and Italy, wtf are you on about?
Of course France and Italy have great parts of the Alps as well.
Anyway, as for France, go to Ecrins or Mercantour National Parks. Simply stunning and infinite possibilities of wild hiking. Not many people on many trails as well.
> So you're telling me that none, not a single one of these tall mountains has a cable car or easily accessible hiking trail that goes to or near the top?
Frick no, otherwise it wouldn’t be as untouristy and wild like you want, unless you go to ski stations. And even so, ski areas are nowhere as wild and high as some wild parts and they act like a hiking hub in summer.
Don’t be a pussy, come well prepared with snacks and water, good shoes, and go hiking. Sometimes you’ll need to camp or sleep in a hut if you do a multi-days hike. You need to be rewarded to see the best parts.
You can get the aiguille du midi in chamonix which takes you up to 3,800m and is like a Bond villains lair. It’s about 70E return. If you stay off the glaciers and go in the summer you’ll be able to hike most of the valley below 3000m. Chamonix valley is busy and it will feel incredibly touristy. Aosta over the border is much quieter but doesn’t have the lift access you wasn’t. I think there’s a cog railway inside the Eiger, and a few other similar lifts in Switzerland but frick Switzerland and anywhere that has that level of lift infrastructure will be hugely busy and touristic. Look at the Mont Blanc trail if you really don’t want to learn to mountaineer. An alternative if you want remoteness but not big mountains is Scotland. The highlands, and particularly the Isle of Skye have some stunning peaks and are near deserted outside of Aviemore and Fort William.
>So you're telling me that none, not a single one of these tall mountains has a cable car or easily accessible hiking trail that goes to or near the top
That's right. The highest you get by cable car is Aiguille du Midi at about 3,8k
You can't hike up these mountains, you have to use mountaineering skills. There are some easy peaks where you only walk on glaciers and no scrambling or climbing. You still need experience and a group as a beginner.
Chamonix is a tourist hot spot. Think lots of busses on weekends that ship tourists in and out. To a lesser degree, this is true of Wallis as well.
If you want remoteness, think Vanoise and Ecrins
>I really thought the alps were primarily Germanic and only slightly dipped into France and Italy
Go to italy bro, all the regions near switzerland and Austria are awesome and if you want high peek you'll need to go to Monte Bianco. I would also reccomend Marmolada and the dolomites.
T. Italian mountains enjoyer here
Julian Alps are underrated af
>just look at a map
French alps are underrated and more empty if you exclude Chamonix
Also, if you don't have outstanding cardio and know how to handle crampons, ice axe and a rope you will not stand on too of the highest mountains.
There are some easy 3000s.
cont.
"Disney" mountains don't have cable cars to the top, perhaps with the exception of Klein Matterhorn. I'm afraid that, except for specific peaks (like Mont Blanc), it'll be like
said. You have to check individually and for real mountaineering (like climbing up the Matterhorn) you need both equipment and typically also education. Unironically be aware that as an impressionable American you have to approach mountains with a sober eye.
If you want to scale a specific mountain or check out which huts there are, install the SAC CAS (Swiss Alpine Club) app on your phone. Click on dots to see paths leading up to them. Red dots are huts.
I'll upload pictures from some spectacular trails that were not mountain peaks.
This one was a climb to Monterosahütte over the glacier, with view towards the Matterhorn. Taken in September.
This one was https://www.myswitzerland.com/de-de/erlebnisse/route/anspruchsvoller-dreitaeger-im-cristallina-gebiet/. Three days of hiking, two nights in different huts. Taken in July.
And this one was taken in December from the peak of Mount Rigi (1797m).
Go to chamonix, pay a guide to take you up Mont Blanc and the Cosmiques Arête. Both of these will feel like big alpine adventures if you’re not a mountaineer already. If you want to learn skills do a UCPA course. You can leave the heavily populated valley and stay in tiny huts like the requin fairly cheaply and be amongst the peaks. Or go stay in vallorcine or cogne which are far far smaller.
Learn to use a map, anon. Pull up Google Maps. Turn on the "Terrain" layer. Look for the terrain you desire. Then buy your ticket.
>Thanks for the responses so far, very helpful. I'm surprised that so many people mention France, I really thought the alps were primarily Germanic and only slightly dipped into France and Italy.
what the hell does that mean? I don't get it
It means whenever I pictured the alps I pictured emotionally removed German-speaking mountaineers living extremely orderly lives, eating uninspired Germanic food and using German engineering to dig tunnels for their trains and shit. I never thought of "the Alps" as a place of artsy fartsy frogs or lazy pasta munchers. I mean when you think of Alpine/Swiss infrastructure do you think "yeah, I bet this was designed by a bunch of ethnic Italians"?
Fair enough, thanks
>I never thought of "the Alps" as a place of artsy fartsy frogs or lazy pasta munchers. I mean when you think of Alpine/Swiss infrastructure do you think "yeah, I bet this was designed by a bunch of ethnic Italians"?
imagine being this moronic
>name comes from Latin
>"I thought they were mostly Germanic"
>It means whenever I pictured the alps I pictured emotionally removed German-speaking mountaineers living extremely orderly lives, eating uninspired Germanic food and using German engineering to dig tunnels for their trains and shit. I never thought of "the Alps" as a place of artsy fartsy frogs or lazy pasta munchers. I mean when you think of Alpine/Swiss infrastructure do you think "yeah, I bet this was designed by a bunch of ethnic Italians"?
kys autistic internet addicted ameritard, stay there
>I never thought of "the Alps" as a place of artsy fartsy frogs or lazy pasta munchers.
The italian section of Switzerland and the alpine section of Italy are the least and most organized, and least and most bland parts of those respective countries.
I don't give a shit about your opinion on europe based on your muh ancestry tour. This has nothing to do with the ameritard thinking the alps were le heckin germanic when all the most important and characteristic peaks and ranges are on the latin side. Is everybody in this website this moronic?
dude, watch your fricking tone and settle the frick down
He's right to insult you. You're so dumb, you deserve it
So true, went to Italy and the way to alpine region was the most boring landscape ride I've seen. Plant some fricking trees.
Lmao, the first person ever to climb every 8km+ mountain was italian.
I'll just chip in here. First, please make a distinction betwen "Germanic" and "German". In general, non-Germans dislike being called Germans.
Second, as a Swiss resident and a hiker, I think that you have to define your goals more concretely. Here's me dissecting your OP:
>cataclysmic peaks and valleys
vague
>snow-capped mountains and glaciers in the middle of July
You will find snow on mountains in July above a certain height level; Google it. Glaciers are called glaciers because they persist throughout all seasons, so your month of visit is irrelevant.
>I mean 2 frickin log cabin houses as the only form of civilization.
Log cabins you have to hike to for 3> hours are very common in Switzerland.
>even that was touristy and not super high
What is high to you? You seem to want a cable car. So does a cable car make a peak touristy or not?
I want you to question your basic assumptions because you might come to surprising conclusions (e.g. you don't have to climb a 4k mountain to have gorgeous sights). (cont.)
God you're really fricking stupid. Stay in America for God sake
I hope moron-kun OP tries to climb the matterhorn and falls off
If you're willing to shell out a decent bit of money, you could try going to a ski resort. Even if you've never been skiing before, you'll be able to ski right through the middle of some pretty amazing landscapes.
if you want to see the Alps just go to Italy or somewhere cheaper than Switzerland. everything is overpriced there.
with that being said, from your post I assume Jungfrau glacer is the place to go but it's uberexpensive. I went there where I was way younger but right now a train ticket to the top costs too much.
if you want the fairytale experience go to Switzerland, if you want to see the Alps go elsewhere.
t. I live in the Alps
Zermatt is where the Matterhorn is at. That's the Disney mountain. But it's a pretty expensive area. We went snowboarding last year. The Airbnb was $140/night. Beers were like $8 in most bars. Food was outrageously expensive. The train tickets are the most expensive in Europe. But you get what you pay for. That ride up to the top on the Gondola is fricking unreal. I've never seen anything more impressive in my life.
lmao cheap as frick compared to skiing in America.
skiied dolomites this year. Definitely an awe inspiring range. OP, the dolomites are particularly epic and have a distinct feel to them.
Highlight for me were blasting down the marmolada glacier top to bottom without stopping, eating a top then skiing down the Amentorola run + the horse cariages pulling us through the enchanted forested at the end, and Krhonegg and Sylvester runs.
Jungfrau region of Switzerland looks to be the most epic
same autist as in the post above, would it be in any way feasible to visit Zermatt in one day, specifically take the gondola to this disney mountain (Matterhorn)
ffs I made a switzerland thread last month asking for things to do and no one talked about hiking to alpine peaks, did they think I was just some nu-SighSee coomer? 🙁
You need two days. It takes a few hours just to get up to Zermatt on the train. Then you have to walk through town to the Gondola. The last ride down is at 4:30 pm, so you have to start early or it's a long ass way down back to Zermatt.
You take the Gondola up from Zermatt about 85 percent of the way to the base of the Matterhorn. It's maybe 4 hours round-trip from the trailhead at the ski hut. This website explains it. https://www.journeyera.com/hornlihutte-hike-matterhorn-base-camp-zermatt/
Can always just take a bus up to the Eagle's Nest if you want a nice view.
If you’re a good skier, hire a guide (important) and ski the Valée Blanche.
>Alsace to southern Germany to northern Switzerland to Voralberg
Age you too stupid to look at a map or what? You're going to places they are not in the Alps expecting to see the Alps. I genuinely think you must be moronic somehow.
Posting this vid because I’m pretty sure this is what you mean by “the alps”.
Might be some good town names to acquaint yourself with.
I will make a thread if I have to but maybe someone will answer here.
I am staying in Interlaken for 3 nights with some friends, no car.
We would like to hike to the Faulhorn. Is this a decent route with places to eat and shit along the way? Would it be possible to hike all the way to Brienz and back to interlaken in a day?
We would also like to see Lauterbrunnen, so if we could combine that, the Faulhorn, and Brienz in one day that would be epic, but not sure if realistic or advisable
> why in 1 day
we need to see st. beatus caves and also hang out in lucerne too.
Any tips greatly appreciated, switzerland isn't talked about too often on SighSee, i think because it is too expensive for most people (90 euro/night for a bunk bed in a hostel dorm)
> Germanic
OP you are getting your ideas from the Austrian Alps, i wonder why no one has mentioned them and is just acting rude.
there's that one clip from a movie of the american sleeping with this german farmer's wife in the barn hay and being discovered and he's running away with the german farmer throwing pitch forks on him. maybe you have seen it and that coloured your impressions of these mountains
>I use Germanic to describe the cultural region of people who speak German and follow similar traditions. What word would you rather I use?
What I was getting at was
>German engineering
The engineering is respective to the specific country (e.g. engineering in Switzerland is Swiss and not German. The Swiss are probably the best at tunneling, anyway). The point I wanted to make was that people'd get mad if you said that. But in all the other instances of "German" and "Germanic", you spoke correctly.
As for the rest:
The conversation still suffers from not having defined your goal. We're also using words that we interpret differently. Let's see if we can remedy that.
When I think of the mountains, here are some key variables I can think of:
>hiking (unsecured: shoes, sticks, crampons for glacier) or mountaineering (secured: harness, rope, carabiners, plus mountaineering education)?
>the season: summer (possibly lumping together spring/autumn) or winter
1. Sights differ (see Rigi). 2. Temperature: winter gets fricking cold. 3. If mountaneering, you may need different education.
>the height. You can think of altitude ranges or of representative peaks or huts that you know. e.g. 870m for Uetliberg, 1797m for Mount Rigi (
This one was a climb to Monterosahütte over the glacier, with view towards the Matterhorn. Taken in September.
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
This one was https://www.myswitzerland.com/de-de/erlebnisse/route/anspruchsvoller-dreitaeger-im-cristallina-gebiet/. Three days of hiking, two nights in different huts. Taken in July.
And this one was taken in December from the peak of Mount Rigi (1797m).), 2592m for Capanna Cristallina (slightly higher than
), 2883m for Monterosahütte (close to
) 3883m for Klein Matterhorn, 4527m for Liskamm (the OP).
>do you have to visit the peak?
Except for Rigi
, none of my posted pictures are from peaks.
>are you visiting the peak by a cable car/furnicular and that's it?
If true, then that's not even hiking.
>how far and how high up are you planning to walk in a day? What's the difficulty of the trail?
>Hiking
Unsecured. I already said I'm not buying or lugging expensive and heavy mountaineering equipment across the ocean. At most I'm bringing a coat and gloves. Boots can smd. As mentioned previously, if it's even theoretically accessible without equipment, I'll attempt it. I don't want to be told what I "should" and "should not" try.
>Sights, temperature, peak
At the bare minimum I want to be surrounded by heavy snow. I would like to stand on the peak but this is not required, simply getting near it would be acceptable.
>Distance
As long as there's an actual trail and I'm not scrambling up rocks by hand, I can comfortably walk pretty much indefinitely. When I went to Hallstatt I hiked from the salt mine about a km further up the mountain, and that was completely impromptu, and incredibly steep and slippery due to ice. With basic preparation and a reasonably sloped trail I could easily see doing 10+ km.
> At most I'm bringing a coat and gloves. Boots can smd. As mentioned previously, if it's even theoretically accessible without equipment, I'll attempt it. I don't want to be told what I "should" and "should not" try.
Kek. In what exact period are you going? I'll keep an eye on the news for when they're searching for your body and include it in the screencap of this thread.
10km is just enough to make it to the top. That's exactly where they'll find your body if you don't bring basic equipment like boots and a headlamp.
What is everyone's hardon for boots anyway? Boots fricking suck and are worse than useless.
>Rigidity means you're basically asking for foot blisters and aches. Not to mention being uncomfortable to wear
>Rigidity is particularly bad at adapting to inclines. Like, you know, the kind you might face on a mountain. You'll be fighting against the tongue of your shoe 100% of the way and will struggle to get grip on uneven terrain
>Lack of breathability means if 1 drop of moisture gets in your shoe it'll be with you for the rest of the hike. It also means you'll sweat and produce that moisture internally. Enjoy your 15 min fungus
>Extremely tedious and time consuming to don and doff
>Extremely difficult to pack, takes up a huge amount of bag space and essentially demands a suitcase
What the frick do people find so genuinely essential about boots to offset ALL of this, I cannot understand it. When I was a kid I went on an excavation in the desert and he insisted I bring boots. I took them off after the first day and wore my normal ass sneakers to zero consequence. Frick boots.
>blisters
Never happened to me, with proper socks and the right fit.
>rigid
Again, yes it’s way more rigid than an everyday pair of shoes and yes, you’re happy to take these off at the end of the day but once again, with proper size and fit, taking in account the thickness of socks, it’s simply a detail. These shoes make hikes much, much easier, as everything will be less slippery and have better grip. Also it protected my ankle when I didn’t properly step on some rock or something.
>breathabilty
I have crossed small streams of river by walking in it very quickly (basically like a quick dip) and the insides were completely dry. The outside dried very quickly. Again, good shoes dry very quickly.
>bag space
That is unfortunately true but that’s the sacrifice I do if I love hiking all over the world.
But seeing how you take hiking in the middle of nowhere very lightly, I can see why every year there’s a “young person missing” during peak season when everything is pretty much safe.
>It's simply a detail
So if we both agree that the boot is in fact rigid, and does not conform to the position of your ankle, then how do you deal with 30-45 degree inclines where your feet would normally have to make an angle? Do you just deal with walking like a chicken? Do you crawl? You're certainly not walking normally because we've agreed that the boot does not conform to that position
>Grip
Hard disagree, besides the previously mentioned incline issue I get better grip from being able to curl my feet in normal street shoes. If I'm standing on a round rock or a fallen log, I want something that molds to the surface, not something that intentionally denies me surface area because it's too rigid
That said, you still haven't explained to me what exactly is so great about them to simp so hard in the first place. Unless you're wading through an actual leech-infested swamp (in which case, why are you not wearing waterproof waders?), what in the world do boots "offer" you? Warmth? Unless you're on Antarctica, throw on a couple extra socks, body heat will do the rest.
When you’re absolutely not familiar with that terrain, especially in high mountains, anything could happen, be it a storm, small rain or wind. I sure as frick don’t go to the steep hill next to my home with boots as I know perfectly well the place. But high up there, far from towns and villages, with little to nobody on trails? Frick no, better come prepared with extra layers of clothes, food, and some other things, unless you go with someone who knows the place very well and assures you that you don’t need any of these. Hell, even in Canada’s mountains I was glad to have boots simply for the fact that there were cacti that cling deeply into your shoes.
You better come prepared, especially in mountains. 4 seasons could occur in a single day up there.
You're not answering any of my questions. You keep saying "bring boots, boots are necessary", you're not saying what they actually *do*.
Other anon, are your feet not cold in sneakers?
>what in the world do boots "offer" you? Warmth? Unless you're on Antarctica, throw on a couple extra socks, body heat will do the rest.
No. No they are not. Between body heat, a couple layers of socks, and the constant pressure/pumping blood from walking around, my feet do just fine. If I was planning to walk around in 4 foot deep uncleared snow, maybe I'd consider boots. But on a normal trail on a cold day? Absolutely not.
Gosh, maybe the reason everyone acts like hiking is hard and 10km is a lot is because they're wearing the worst, most uncomfortable footwear known to man.
> rigidity
that saved my ankle, we were jogging through rough mountainous terrain and I hit a hole. In a normal shoe that would have been a sprained ankle, here it was just a twinge of pain that went away after 10-15 seconds
> difficult to pack
mine are decently big, but I packed them into my duffel bag all the same. Sure it's a bit tighter than what I'm used to, but it fits and I don't regret it. no suitcase needed
Of course, shoes like these are only necessary if you are going on 5h+ hikes in rough uneven terrain. i.e. the Swiss Alps
>t. AVGN
Frog and budding alpinist here.
>What are those if not some form of access by car
From the pics I estimate the roads to be between 2200 and 2500m in altitude.
Most of these roads are service roads for hydroelectrical power of going to passes between valleys, so by design the lowest crossable point. In most areas with mountains worth climbing you have at least still a solid kilometer of stone above you to climb, and possibly tens of kilometers to walk on trails ranging from adequately traced to downright murderous..
>So you're telling me that none, not a single one of these tall mountains has a cable car or easily accessible hiking trail that goes to or near the top?
What you're looking for is for Pic du Midi. Nice for a day but you're clearly missing the point of mountain trekking and/or alpinism.
>The more important question is, will anyone legally be able to stop me if I don't buy $4000 worth of equipment and licenses? I'm not bringing intense mountaineering equipment across the ocean and I'm not paying Nepal-tier fees just to get "permission" to go where I want.
Oh, go ahead. You're welcome to try. The mountain will take care of you just fine.
Also if you ever decide to man the frick up and commit to it with the seriousness it deserves, I'm partial to the italian Dolomites.
>The more important question is, will anyone legally be able to stop me if I don't buy $4000 worth of equipment and licenses? I'm not bringing intense mountaineering equipment across the ocean and I'm not paying Nepal-tier fees just to get "permission" to go where I want.
Given that you're too stupid to do some basic research on google I doubt you'll be able to do any kind of serious mountain climbing without killing yourself or having to call a chopper to get you down to your hotel.
in Austria you can do: Traunstein (small but good for beginners), Großglockner, Dachstein, and literally 100s others.
Obertauern or Arlberg for skiing r optimal.
I've been to Alpbach, first time snowboarding. Really liked it.
>not gaming on Courchevel
Go to Italy. Lat year I did the Pradidali mountain hut hike, it's a steep hike with 1000m difference between the start and finish. You start in a thick woodland and come out into a lunar landscape of jagged rock. Pic related. Is this what you're looking for.
Last year i took the train to zermatt and started my hike from the foot of the matternhorn. Hiked towards chamonix. It was a bit of everything. Mountain passes, shoddy small cable lifts with 1000m drop, tourist cabins and small villages. I slept in a tent, so it was prrtty cheap. Also if you time it with the utmb in chamonix you will have a hood time. The town is basicly just a huge party for the week. Would recommend
A lot of that stuff isn't accessible to easy hiking (or is too accessible, like in the case of Jungfraujoch or Aiguille du Midi).
One place you could go to is the Cabane du Trient. It's an easy hike up to the mountain hut at 3169m elevation, and there's a decently sized glacier up there with a bunch of peaks all around. Very alpine atmosphere.
I mention this because I went there a while back, but there are dozens of other places you might want to check out as well.
Where are the Alps?
It's not here!
Could it be here?
No it's not!
Maybe it's here? (Dutch are almost Germans, surely they must have the Alps!)
No luck again....
Better ask SighSee!
Not sure if troll or peak murrica but its amusing either way
Why not both
Any of you gays done multi-day hikes in the alps? Considering doing the tour du Mont Blanc with my buddies