siren6214

Planning a first trip to Europe after 30-years of waiting!! After this trip it will probably be another 30- before I get back so I'm trying to cram a lot into 2-months. After reviewing my itinerary EXTENSIVELY I decided it would amplify our experience for the best if I cut out one leg of the trip. We will have seen all of Ireland, Scotland, London, Belgium, France Switzerland and Italy by the time we would head up to Krakow and then back down through Prague. My husband is a huge history buff so Krakow was one of the top places he was hoping to visit (all the others are being fulfilled) on the way down from Krakow I planned to visit Prague since it was all the rage amongst friends I've known who got me hooked on the idea...but that was back in college. We are wrapping up the trip in Munich for Oktoberfest and if I cut out Krakow and Prague it will save a lot of time and money- but I also feel that we may never be that close again. Thoughts?

unclegus

I would cut Oktoberfest in Munich ,way over rated over priced and far too many drunks. Finish in Prague and enjoy some fantastic beers in some great pubs, micro breweries and beer gardens instead of the PukeFest ,sorry Oktoberfest.

Percy

I agree, do Prague

fourfortravel

I, too, would cut Oktoberfest. We live just "down the road" in Vienna and went to Oktoberfest as an excuse for a weekend getaway to celebrate DH and DS's birthdays. Our 17 year-old son found the whole experience to be just "okay," even in light of his "celebrating," shall we say. Perhaps if we had gone with longtime non-drunken Oktoberfesters the experience may have been different, but having visited Prague and Krakow as well, I would scrap Oktoberfest in a heartbeat. At that time of the year there are so many other festivals going on, as well, that you won't even notice you're missing Oktoberfest!

DebitNM

+1 Prague. We were there for 4 days in November and it was great!

BigRuss

Prague > Krakow. Nicer city.

What is the "history" the hubby wants to see?

WWII history = neither. Both were relatively not impacted (compared to Warsaw, Gdansk) by WWII.

Commie history = both are interesting, edge to Prague. Prague has the Commie history museum in the same building as a casino(!), the Velvet Revolution, the Prague Spring and Jan Palach. Krakow has Nowa Huta and the Arka Pana and the tours offered by Mike's Crazy Guides (take it).

Krakow is close to Oswiecjim, so that means it's close to the most infamous site of the Holocaust. Any person who claims an interest in history and does not visit is not a "history buff."

Prague is close to Terezin, which has more layers of "history" (it's where the Serb who killed Archduke Ferdinand was jailed) than Auschwitz, was a perverse publicity stunt by the Nazis that the Red Cross endorsed to its everlasting shame, and is more "interactive" than the displays at Auschwitz. Plus, unlike Birkenau, you won't have tourists climbing up the guard tower of the Gate of Death and posing for pictures like it's a gawdam playground.

Krakow has far better vodka - check the Szambelan shop. And St. Francis Basilica - stunning stained glass, not the gothic squarish stuff you're accustomed to.

A_S_M

Over the past fifty years or more my wife and I have visited almost all of the European capital cities from Helsinki in the north to Lisbon in the South, from Moscow in the east to Dublin in the west (the only main exceptions are Rome and Athens though we have been to both countries), and many large and small cities in Europe. If we had tochoose just two cities from all of these, they would be Prague and Budapest. We first visited Prague in the summer of 1963, before the Prague Spring, we were also there in 1989 jus before the Berlin Wall came down, and Czechoslovakia was in a terrible state, two years later when we were there how things had changed. Similarly we were in Budapest before and after the fall of the Wall. There is so much to see and do in both cities.
In my opinion, if one were in that area of Europe, one should take in three other capital cities, all three of which have much much to offer. Vienna, which of cause is a great city, together with Llubljana, capital of Slovenia, and Zagreb, capital of Croatia.

What of out favourite countries, there we would put together four of the republics which made up the former country of Jugoslavia, namely Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia.
Of all the small cities we have visited, Dubrovnik is our favourite.
You mention, Krakow, we haven’t visited that city, but have been to Warsaw, Gdansk, and Torun, the birthplace of Copernicus. All three are well worth a visit.

Dianedancer

I have been to Krakow, Budapest and Prague and I would go to Budapest over Krakow in a heartbeat. Buda and Pest (on opposite sides of the river) have different terrains.

Budapest still has some far from pristine buildings (unlike Prague), which i found fascinating and it felt like the history was right in front of you without the humongous crowds that were in Prague (which were there even in Feb. when we went). For some reason, I really connected to Budapest in a way I didn't with Krakow. But who knows why?

Budapest - See the Communist era Statue park.

thursdaysd

Budapest over Krakow over Prague. Prague is worth seeing but overrun with tourist crowds. And almost anywhere over Oktoberfest, lol.

But not sure what you mean by seeing "all" of six countries plus London in two months. The time might be better to added to one of those countries.