2 weeks Central/Eastern Europe itinerary order, please help me fix it
Aug 13th, 2012, 10:47 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 weeks Central/Eastern Europe itinerary order, please help me fix it
Hi, I have 2 weeks next year to travel and plan on going to Central/Eastern Europe. I know 2 weeks isn't much but that's all I can spare. I plan on visiting 4 countries hopefully.
From Paris, I'll fly to Poland, then work my way to Czech Republic, then Austria, then Hungary. Then fly out from Budapest back to Paris. All transportation will be via trains and the only time I'll fly is to and from Paris. I want to squeeze in Slovakia but I guess 4 countries is enough as it is. My ABSOLUTE must visit cities are the big capitals, Prague, Vienna and Budapest.
Krakow, Warsaw and Salt Mines, 3 days
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days
Too rushed, just right? I suppose I could squeeze in 1 or 2 days more but that's it and hopefully I don't have to. I like architecture, history, nice scenery, photography. Not into beach or night life or extreme outdoor sports. I'm also female, and this will be my first solo trip to Europe, although I've been in Ireland before with my bf.
Help?
From Paris, I'll fly to Poland, then work my way to Czech Republic, then Austria, then Hungary. Then fly out from Budapest back to Paris. All transportation will be via trains and the only time I'll fly is to and from Paris. I want to squeeze in Slovakia but I guess 4 countries is enough as it is. My ABSOLUTE must visit cities are the big capitals, Prague, Vienna and Budapest.
Krakow, Warsaw and Salt Mines, 3 days
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days
Too rushed, just right? I suppose I could squeeze in 1 or 2 days more but that's it and hopefully I don't have to. I like architecture, history, nice scenery, photography. Not into beach or night life or extreme outdoor sports. I'm also female, and this will be my first solo trip to Europe, although I've been in Ireland before with my bf.
Help?
Aug 14th, 2012, 02:41 AM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, first of all - those places are central europe - eastern europe is Russia or Ukraine. I think you're a little rushed - but OK except for Poland. When you consider moving between cities you really don;t have time to move around in Poland. IMHO in 2 weeks 4 hotels is the most you should have. (Do realize if you have 4 nights in a city that means 3 days and 3 nights is only 2 days.)
Also, you are wasting a lot of time flying in and out of Paris - and then trekking to and fro where you really want to be. I would definitely fly into your first city and home from your last - and leave Paris out of the equation to avoid wasting 2 days of your limited time.
Also, you are wasting a lot of time flying in and out of Paris - and then trekking to and fro where you really want to be. I would definitely fly into your first city and home from your last - and leave Paris out of the equation to avoid wasting 2 days of your limited time.
Aug 14th, 2012, 03:28 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would drop Poland. You're planning 1 day in Warsaw and 1 day in Krakow. Not nearly enough time. And do not "squeeze" in anything else.
You're not accounting for any travel time. I wonder how people think they're going to get to the next place? There are many itineraries like yours where there is no travel time built in.
And what is the obsession to go to as many countries as possible rather than seeing a few places and enjoying your trip rather than run helter skelter? I've wondered about this for many years and no one who does this can answer why. And why squeeze things in.
You won't have time to look at much architecture or explore history with this itinerary. What you will see are highways or train stations or bus depots galore.
You can do Prague, Vienna, and Budapest nicely in 2 weeks and take some side trips.
You're not accounting for any travel time. I wonder how people think they're going to get to the next place? There are many itineraries like yours where there is no travel time built in.
And what is the obsession to go to as many countries as possible rather than seeing a few places and enjoying your trip rather than run helter skelter? I've wondered about this for many years and no one who does this can answer why. And why squeeze things in.
You won't have time to look at much architecture or explore history with this itinerary. What you will see are highways or train stations or bus depots galore.
You can do Prague, Vienna, and Budapest nicely in 2 weeks and take some side trips.
Aug 14th, 2012, 06:06 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies guys!
nytraveler: the Paris flights are not counted in the 2 weeks. I only really start counting the days when I'm actually in Central Europe.
adrienne: I guess people just want to squeeze in as many countries as possible because they don't know when or if they'll ever get back. It's sort of like a "now or never" thing. I'm actually from Asia, and just the trip to Paris will cost me an arm and a leg. The trip to Europe is a luxury that I don't think I can afford indulging in as often as I'd like.
I do think I should just do 3 countries though, so maybe I'll drop Poland. If I added 2 additional days, making my total trip time 16 days, (excluding the flights to Paris) maybe that's enough for Poland or still too rushed?
Thanks again guys.
nytraveler: the Paris flights are not counted in the 2 weeks. I only really start counting the days when I'm actually in Central Europe.
adrienne: I guess people just want to squeeze in as many countries as possible because they don't know when or if they'll ever get back. It's sort of like a "now or never" thing. I'm actually from Asia, and just the trip to Paris will cost me an arm and a leg. The trip to Europe is a luxury that I don't think I can afford indulging in as often as I'd like.
I do think I should just do 3 countries though, so maybe I'll drop Poland. If I added 2 additional days, making my total trip time 16 days, (excluding the flights to Paris) maybe that's enough for Poland or still too rushed?
Thanks again guys.
Aug 14th, 2012, 06:43 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you try to see too many places you wind up seeing very little and the trip becomes a blur. If you add 2 days and want to go to Poland I would choose only 1 city to visit. I like Krakow better than Warsaw.
I can't indulge in a trip to Europe as often as I like either but when I go someplace I like to be able to see most things. I hate coming back home and realizing that I was in a town/city and missed so much.
I can't indulge in a trip to Europe as often as I like either but when I go someplace I like to be able to see most things. I hate coming back home and realizing that I was in a town/city and missed so much.
Aug 14th, 2012, 09:18 AM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No clue why Warsaw would be on the list - it has some holdover architectural monstrosities from Stalinization and the rest of the city is just rebuilt on the ashes of what was defenestrated in WWII.
Generally, I agree that the initial plan is daft - the Salt Mines you're referencing (in all likelihood) are outside Krakow. So is Oswiecim, which has a German name too. If you want to know about the history of Poland, that place would also be potentially worth a visit considering that more than half of the Holocaust victims were Poles.
Don't know why Cesky Krumlov is a necessity either - there are easier day trips from Prague (Thereisenstadt, Karlstejn) and you don't have much time in Prague anyway. A 16-night stay with 5 for Vienna, 6 for Prague and 5 for Budapest would work. Go to Prague first or Budapest first. You'll lose only a 1/2 day each on traveling from Prague to Vienna and Vienna to Budapest. If you want to go to Slovakia, Bratislava is an hour from Vienna.
Generally, I agree that the initial plan is daft - the Salt Mines you're referencing (in all likelihood) are outside Krakow. So is Oswiecim, which has a German name too. If you want to know about the history of Poland, that place would also be potentially worth a visit considering that more than half of the Holocaust victims were Poles.
Don't know why Cesky Krumlov is a necessity either - there are easier day trips from Prague (Thereisenstadt, Karlstejn) and you don't have much time in Prague anyway. A 16-night stay with 5 for Vienna, 6 for Prague and 5 for Budapest would work. Go to Prague first or Budapest first. You'll lose only a 1/2 day each on traveling from Prague to Vienna and Vienna to Budapest. If you want to go to Slovakia, Bratislava is an hour from Vienna.
Aug 14th, 2012, 09:46 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would take a day of Buda and pest and put it in Vienna
if doing all by train strongly consider the Eastern European Railpass, valid on trains in Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary - hop on at will - full flexible - IME on the trip of a lifetime with luggage go first class - lots more empty seats, bigger seats - if just getting on more likely to find lots of empty seats - easy to keep eye on luggage as I often have it on an adjoining seat.
For lots of great info on trains in those countries and passes I always spotlight these really informative sites: www.ricksteves.com; www.seat61.com and http://www.budgeteuropetravel.com/id6.html.-
if doing all by train strongly consider the Eastern European Railpass, valid on trains in Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary - hop on at will - full flexible - IME on the trip of a lifetime with luggage go first class - lots more empty seats, bigger seats - if just getting on more likely to find lots of empty seats - easy to keep eye on luggage as I often have it on an adjoining seat.
For lots of great info on trains in those countries and passes I always spotlight these really informative sites: www.ricksteves.com; www.seat61.com and http://www.budgeteuropetravel.com/id6.html.-
Aug 14th, 2012, 11:57 AM
#8
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drop Salzburg because of your limited travel time.
Consider flying. For example, this new web site http://www.drungli.com/ indicates that there is a 11€ flight between Krakow and Budapest (the actual cost will be much higher after taxes and fees). Whether it would fit in your tight schedule (flight days might be limited) is another issue. Your itinerary would perhaps look like this: Paris - Krakow - Budapest - Vienna - Prague - Paris (taking trains between Budapest and Prague).
Consider flying. For example, this new web site http://www.drungli.com/ indicates that there is a 11€ flight between Krakow and Budapest (the actual cost will be much higher after taxes and fees). Whether it would fit in your tight schedule (flight days might be limited) is another issue. Your itinerary would perhaps look like this: Paris - Krakow - Budapest - Vienna - Prague - Paris (taking trains between Budapest and Prague).
Aug 14th, 2012, 08:11 PM
#9
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> My ABSOLUTE must visit cities are the big capitals, Prague, Vienna and Budapest.
You can do that in the time you have available.
> I want to squeeze in Slovakia
I think that would be ill-advised -- TOO much.
> Krakow, Warsaw and Salt Mines, 3 days
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days ...
Too rushed, just right?
IMO, yes, right, too rushed. Since you identify your minimum as "ABSOLUTE must visit cities are the big capitals, Prague, Vienna and Budapest," I think you should skip Poland. Add time to these priorities depending on your interests. (Personally, I would add about 2 days to Vienna and 1 to Salzburg, so 5 and 1 or 4.5 and 1.5, but that's just me.)
> I suppose I could squeeze in 1 or 2 days more but that's it and hopefully I don't have to.
I still don't think you have time to justify including Poland - you would just short change everything by doing so. Just my opinion.
> I'm also female, and this will be my first solo trip to Europe
That shouldn't be a problem, but do try to learn the basic pleasantries in each language before you go. (That might be another reason to skip Poland on this trip.)
> If I added 2 additional days, making my total trip time 16 days, (excluding the flights to Paris) maybe that's enough for Poland or still too rushed?
For my tastes, still too rushed. And I'm an experienced solo female traveler who prefers a fast pace!
As others have noted, you need to factor in the time it takes to relocate - time to pack, check out, get to the train station (or whatever) WELL in advance of your planned departure ... and then, upon arriving in your next destination, orient to a different language, find your way out of the station and to your accommodation, check in, freshen up ... and only then perhaps be able to begin exploring again.
> I guess people just want to squeeze in as many countries as possible because they don't know when or if they'll ever get back. It's sort of like a "now or never" thing.
I understand the temptation to include as much as possible; I think many of us who have responded to your questions understand that temptation all too well! What I am trying to suggest, and what I think others are saying, is that if you spend too much time rushing from one place to another, you risk both (a) having too little time to see what you came to see in the first place and (b) spending too much time in transit, which can be among the least pleasant moments of any trip.
I suspect that most (if not all) of us understand that choosing one's destinations can feel like - and can actually be - a "now or never" thing. And because it could, in fact, be a "now or never thing," we are trying to share the wisdom we've gained through experience - the experience that tells us that sometimes, when traveling, LESS really means MORE.
Personally, I think you will find your trip more satisfying and less stressful if you skip Poland this time, but no matter what you decide, you'll see some wonderful places. Enjoy!
You can do that in the time you have available.
> I want to squeeze in Slovakia
I think that would be ill-advised -- TOO much.
> Krakow, Warsaw and Salt Mines, 3 days
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days ...
Too rushed, just right?
IMO, yes, right, too rushed. Since you identify your minimum as "ABSOLUTE must visit cities are the big capitals, Prague, Vienna and Budapest," I think you should skip Poland. Add time to these priorities depending on your interests. (Personally, I would add about 2 days to Vienna and 1 to Salzburg, so 5 and 1 or 4.5 and 1.5, but that's just me.)
> I suppose I could squeeze in 1 or 2 days more but that's it and hopefully I don't have to.
I still don't think you have time to justify including Poland - you would just short change everything by doing so. Just my opinion.
> I'm also female, and this will be my first solo trip to Europe
That shouldn't be a problem, but do try to learn the basic pleasantries in each language before you go. (That might be another reason to skip Poland on this trip.)
> If I added 2 additional days, making my total trip time 16 days, (excluding the flights to Paris) maybe that's enough for Poland or still too rushed?
For my tastes, still too rushed. And I'm an experienced solo female traveler who prefers a fast pace!
As others have noted, you need to factor in the time it takes to relocate - time to pack, check out, get to the train station (or whatever) WELL in advance of your planned departure ... and then, upon arriving in your next destination, orient to a different language, find your way out of the station and to your accommodation, check in, freshen up ... and only then perhaps be able to begin exploring again.
> I guess people just want to squeeze in as many countries as possible because they don't know when or if they'll ever get back. It's sort of like a "now or never" thing.
I understand the temptation to include as much as possible; I think many of us who have responded to your questions understand that temptation all too well! What I am trying to suggest, and what I think others are saying, is that if you spend too much time rushing from one place to another, you risk both (a) having too little time to see what you came to see in the first place and (b) spending too much time in transit, which can be among the least pleasant moments of any trip.
I suspect that most (if not all) of us understand that choosing one's destinations can feel like - and can actually be - a "now or never" thing. And because it could, in fact, be a "now or never thing," we are trying to share the wisdom we've gained through experience - the experience that tells us that sometimes, when traveling, LESS really means MORE.
Personally, I think you will find your trip more satisfying and less stressful if you skip Poland this time, but no matter what you decide, you'll see some wonderful places. Enjoy!
Aug 16th, 2012, 01:06 AM
#10
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Manilenya,
It sounds like a great trip. As a solo female traveler, you will have no issues at all. My only sugggest estions would be to skip Cesky Krumlov and Warsaw. Yes, CK is a beautiful little town but not at the expense of Salzburg, Vienna, Budapest or Prague. Warsaw is nice, but new and a typical capital city. These are just my opinions. Stay focused on what your core goals are. The only outlier for me in this itinerary is Krakow, which I can´t make myself skip.
As far as whether this is Eastern or Central Europe, I have to say that I am a bit tired of the insistence on supposedly correct terminoloy. According to the populations of CZ, Hungary etc. they are central Europe. However, the UN has them classified as Eastern Europe (as do most Western Europeans) So it just depends. Now, as far as Eastern Europe being just Russia and the Ukraine, that is false. The Baltic countries are certainly eastern Europe as is Moldova and Belorus. A good argument can be made that eastern Europe comprises the countries that were part of the eastern bloc but that arument won´t make you any friends in this area.
It sounds like a great trip. As a solo female traveler, you will have no issues at all. My only sugggest estions would be to skip Cesky Krumlov and Warsaw. Yes, CK is a beautiful little town but not at the expense of Salzburg, Vienna, Budapest or Prague. Warsaw is nice, but new and a typical capital city. These are just my opinions. Stay focused on what your core goals are. The only outlier for me in this itinerary is Krakow, which I can´t make myself skip.
As far as whether this is Eastern or Central Europe, I have to say that I am a bit tired of the insistence on supposedly correct terminoloy. According to the populations of CZ, Hungary etc. they are central Europe. However, the UN has them classified as Eastern Europe (as do most Western Europeans) So it just depends. Now, as far as Eastern Europe being just Russia and the Ukraine, that is false. The Baltic countries are certainly eastern Europe as is Moldova and Belorus. A good argument can be made that eastern Europe comprises the countries that were part of the eastern bloc but that arument won´t make you any friends in this area.
Aug 16th, 2012, 07:46 AM
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your replies guys! It looks like I will have to drop Poland from my list. It breaks my heart to let go of it though haha so I'll just have to add more days. But if I can't, then ok Poland is out. Will take out Cesky Krumlov too.
Thanks guys. I'm getting more and more excited about my trip!
Thanks guys. I'm getting more and more excited about my trip!
Aug 18th, 2012, 09:15 AM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krakow, Warsaw and Salt Mines, 3 days
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days
why do you have to take Poland out?
I would take 2 days out of Budapest - two days was more than enough there for me anyway and add to Poland and take a day off Prague and put it in Vienna.
There is an overnight train between Krakow and Budapest that could also save time.
You IMO do you time for Poland.
Prague and Cesky Krumlov 4 days
Vienna and Salzburg 3 days
Budapest 4 days
why do you have to take Poland out?
I would take 2 days out of Budapest - two days was more than enough there for me anyway and add to Poland and take a day off Prague and put it in Vienna.
There is an overnight train between Krakow and Budapest that could also save time.
You IMO do you time for Poland.
Aug 19th, 2012, 08:35 AM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second Michael's take on Warsaw - leave it out and keep Krakow - far nicer city in many regards - Warsaw of course is interesting but lacks any old-world charm since it was blitzed to bits in WW2 - modern city - not saying not nice and interesting but if time is short...
Aug 19th, 2012, 08:43 AM
#16
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your trip sounds like an itinerary for a group tour!If you want to get just a taste of these places then go on a group tour! Later do a more detailed trip by yourself and visit the places where you wanted to spend more time!
