slvrhwk

Hey guys,

I and my wife are planning a 16-17 trip to Western Europe from late April to mid May. This is our first time there, and we need help preparing an itinerary. Could you please help us narrowing down the cities? Here are a couple of options we have thought of.
1. Copenhagen, Berlin, Amsterdam, Bruges, Paris
2. Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam (and possibly Bruges or Copenhagen).

We'll be flying into the first city and flying out from the last one. We're open to changing it up as well. Which itinerary is more doable and what do you recommend? I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks!

Kathie

How many nights will you have on the ground in Europe? That will help us know how much time you have to see/do/experience. If you have 15 nights on the ground, you'll have 14 full days. Then you have to subtract out half a day to most of a day each time you change locations (figure time to check out of lodgings in one city, get to the train station or airport, wait time, travel time, then get from the airport or train station to your next lodging, get checked in and settled in).

I prefer to spend some time in each place to get to know each city a bit. SO if it was my trip - and it isn't - I'd choose not more than 3 cities. You certainly don't have time for 5 cities! So I would say that neither itinerary is realistic if you want to explore a bit in each city.

Note that your cities are not equal in what they have to offer. Bruges can be done as a day trip from Brussels, for instance. Paris, you could spend your whole time there and not run out of things to do.

slvrhwk

Thanks for the reply, Kathie. We are planning to get there on 27th April morning and take the return flight on 13th May, during the day, which gives us 16 nights.

Pegontheroad

I suggest that you look at a map of Europe to see which cities are close to each other. I agree with Kathie's masterly suggestions as to how much time you actually have for sight-seeing.

Leave out Bruges and one other location. I liked Copenhagen a lot (my grandparents were Danish), but if I were you I'd visit Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris, or Barcelona, Amsterdam and Paris.

slvrhwk

Thanks for the reply, Pegontheroad. So my idea was that (and I could be wrong here) if we go with itinerary 1, we wouldn't be spending more than 2 days in Copenhagen and Bruges, which might give us enough time to cover the other 3 cities (Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris). If we go with itinerary 2, we should have enough time for the 4 cities I mentioned, and depending on feedback received here, if we can cut 1 night from 1 or 2 cities, then we can squeeze in either Bruges or Copenhagen.

Kathie

To get two days in a city, you have to stay 3 nights. So your idea that you could spend two nights each in Copenhagen and Bruges and still have enough time to visit 3 other cities is unrealistic if you actually want to experience any of these places.

I understand that editing one's itinerary can be the hardest part of planning a trip. But give yourselves enough time to explore these places you have so carefully chosen, which means saving some of them for another trip.

michelhuebeli

Too many cities too far apart, with cultures and languages too different from one another - you'll end up with a hasty blur and no coherent impressions.

Pick a heavyweight like Paris, easily enough for two weeks along.

Plan to get up very early now and then for day trips outside of Paris so you have variety: Bayeux (historic tapestries and WWII D-Day), Giverny (Monet), Reims (Champagne "bubbly"), Versailles (palace), Blois + Chambord (castles, both doable in one day by train), Burgundy.

If you really desire two diferent cities and cultures and languages, add Amsterdam and book your tickets into Paris and home from Amsterdam. Lots to see and do there and in the region also.

WoinParis

Amsterdam Berlin can be done by low cost flight such as easyjet germanwings or Ryanair. For Barcelona add vueling.
Do check a map and take into consideration transit time.
Eg : if flying time is 2 hours you have to add time to reach airport safety time and time to reach airport. So easily 4 hours.
Then decide !
You'll get a lot of advice to cut down the number of stays. 2 reasons for that : we are a bunch a seasoned travelers and like to take our time to visit + even if we want to be fast our old bodies don't follow.
Some will even say you should learn the language for one year before going to a foreign country !
It is your trip. Rushed or not.

bilboburgler

It takes me 4 days to get to understand a small city like Barcelona, the public transport, the eating times, the different types of restaurants, what even simple stuff means like opening hours as shown on websites and at museums do not always mean what they would on Anglo-Saxon cultured countries.

An example: in Italy 9 to 4 can mean 9 to 5 in the UK, the 4 means entrance time, the 5 means departure time.

You lose at least half a day getting things wrong, a little lost, a little confused or missunderstood.

So min 3 nights in a small city, then a big city also has a hinterland. With good public transport that hinterland can be wonderful. Both Amsterdam and Paris are especially good like that.

StCirq

"Covering" places is a bad place to start from when planning an itinerary. For one thing, you couldn't "cover" any of these places in less than 2-3 weeks each. It looks as though you have modeled your itinerary on a typical drive-by bus tour. If you really want to gain anything from visiting Europe, a slower approach is warranted. It also cuts down on your expenses and the amount of time you spend packing, unpacking, and in train stations and on trains.

15 days, which is what I count for your trip, is a short time. In each city you have to learn to navigate, get accustomed to the language and the customs, and still make time to eat and explore and relax. Add that to the time it will take you to travel between places, and you have a very rushed itinerary, and a very expensive one.

I would pick the three cities that interest you most and keep it to that. The time doesn't have to be allocated equally to each; some deserve more time than others. Up to you to decide how to arrange it. Buy open-jaw tickets and learn to use the various rail systems (www.seat61.com).

Good luck

WoinParis

Just for the fun I checked the 'must see' of another forum in Shanghai. I spent 3-4 evenings and have seen 6 out of the 7 first 'must sees'. So perfectly doable in one day !

Dogeared

I could not suggest you visit any city unless I had some idea of what your interests are.

What got them on your potential list to begin with? If you ask people to help you, you have to give them some criteria on which to base their advice. You have given no information at all on what interests you.

There is no such thing as the 'Universal Tourist Interest List', otherwise known as 'must sees'. Of the cities you list, only 2 are of interest to me personally at all for example. One for Belgian chocolate and the other for the work of a particular architect.

PalenQ

Trains are great if distances are not too long but many of yours are - for lots of info on European trains check www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com. Suggest you consider cities that are a bit closer together to cut down travel time - even flying takes most of a day.

dwdvagamundo

As you asked for help in narrowing down the cities, I'll suggest either

Amsterdam--Bruges--Paris
or Barcelona--Madrid--Paris


Save a day or two for side trips from each city.


At that time of year, I'd fly into Barcelona and out of Paris.

Open jaw tickets no matter which you select.

NewbE

<It takes me 4 days to get to understand a small city>
Good lord! This sort of advice here has jumped the shark at last.

Look, I was able to spend just 4 days in Rome. Did I grasp the city in its entirety, see all its treasures, become throughly at home in its streets? Of course not, LOL. But it was a lovely visit. Just because you can spend weeks--months, years--in Paris and never get bored doesn't mean that this OP wants to. Or should!

If you have, great, good for you, you win. But it's just numpty to read a question that posits visiting 4-5 cities and reply, stick to one or you will be hideously confused.

If it were me, I'd do three cities in the time the OP has. Bruges is a nice day trip from Brussels, but since you won't be in Brussels, skip it. Berlin/Paris/Amsterdam would be wonderful, IMO. I haven't been to Spain so can't comment on Madrid or Barcelona.

suze

I think both your itineraries have too many places listed (that aren't geographically close to each other).

With 16-17 days, choosing three places instead of five or six will work out better. Which to chose, that part's up to you, we can't really say what you would enjoy most.