Pommes and oranges and I don’t mean it competitively, but the Trans Canada Trail system being 24,000km vs France’s 3,000km really puts into perspective for me just how much space we have here.
Europe always feels really small when examining any single country. I still feel surprised by the idea that you can drive across many of these countries in less than a day.
But france is extremely diverse in nature relative to its size. This trail goes through wet lowlands to coasty areas, through ancient vulcanic areas. High mountains, dry grounds etc.
You have travel a hell lot further in most other places.
True but you see very different landscapes in these 3000kms and probably more diverse than in the 24000km of the Canadian trail.
Also if you like history you probably can visit some castles from different centuries along the way.
But it is true that on the French trail you cannot experience real wilderness where you encounter no humans for days and fear to do a bad encounter with wildlife.
The only wildlife that you'd probably see are ibex/chamois, beavers, vultures/eagles in the mountains, and if you are lucky wild boars, foxes, squirrels, deers, snakes and extremely lucky wolves in the Alps and bears in the Pyrenees.
Western Canada alone is absolutely stunning and wild af. You won't find a wilderness like that anywhere in Europe anymore. It's not for the faint of heart at all. While I am a pretty experienced backpacker I stayed away from most remote areas in western Canada. Even a day trip would take me on a peak that would be hiked just a few times per year. Zero cell service too.
Nice strawman. I never said otherwise, but it's a fact that very few (if any?) countries pack so many diverse landscapes in an area as small as France.
I am legit at a loss of words. The part you quoted literally state that in a much shorter distance you can see more diverse landscapes. This is literally what these numbers and words mean.
As for "The idea a vastly smaller area would be more diverse is also silly." I have rarely read something so silly. France covers 213k square-miles are you saying that it cannot be more diverse than the Sahara that covers 3.5M ?
I don't see this conversation leading to anything remotely interesting. It is clear that you don't have the most elementary knowledge of geography.
Canada isn't the Sahara, it is a big diverse area. It's spans a big continent. (Is that a straw man argument I detect?)
Nothing you've stated infers that France would naturally have more diverse landscapes compared to Canada.
I don't know French Geography as much as I do Canadian, but I am not uneducated in the subject because we learn about it in school for history involving the wars.
I've actually driven across most of Canada, and even I was surprised at the diversity. I didn't think I'd be driving through desert environments, or rainforests. Mountains, and endless farm and forest land was the stereotype.
"The geography of France consists of a terrain that is mostly flat plains or gently rolling hills in the north and west and mountainous in the south (including the Massif Central and the Pyrenees) and the east (the highest points being in the Alps)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_France
"Canada can be divided into seven physiographic regions: the Canadian Shield, the interior plains, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Lowlands, the Appalachian region, the Western Cordillera, Hudson Bay Lowlands and the Arctic Archipelago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Canada
Much more geographically diverse.
But please, if I am wrong, correct me. But I don't see this conversation leading to anything remotely interesting either, because you're trying to insult my intelligence and you are also incorrect about the facts.
I've unfortunately never been to France, so I look forward to being corrected if I am mistaken.
Europe always feels really small when examining any single country. I still feel surprised by the idea that you can drive across many of these countries in less than a day.