bwergs

I'm planning a 4-week trip through Europe in late September early October. I have been to Madrid and Paris, otherwise I've never been outside the US, so I'm very excited.

I'll be 24 and traveling alone, hoping to meet people along the way through hostels and travel social network sites. I want to experience a good mix of places. While I'm very into art and architecture, I'm also content to experience some good local food and beer or have a crazy night out.

Here's my current idea for a route:
London -> Bruges -> Amsterdam -> Berlin -> Prague -> Krakow -> Budapest -> Ljubljana

However, I'm worried this may be too many places... should I cut one out? If so, which one? I was also considering going from Ljublana to Venice at the end. Would love any input...

isabel

Well if you split the time evenly that would be almost 4 nights each, so three full days in each location (some deserve more time, some less). A fast pace but certainly not crazy.

I have been to all the places you list except Krakow - which I am very interested in visiting but it never seems easy to get to (long train rides, cheapo flights only to certain cities on certain days). You might want to check train times between Krakow and Prague/Budapest to see if you really want to devote that much time.

And if you did decide to cut out Krakow it would seem you could pretty easily add Venice on at the end. There are also more choices of flights and better prices from Venice to the US than from Ljubljana so it does sort of make sense to have that be your end point.

StCirq

Not crazy. Sounds good, actually.

nytraveler

I know 4 week seems like a long time but once you allow the time to get from one place to another you will have at the most 3 days in each place. This is OK for Bruges and Krakiw - but IMHO a first visit to London deserves at least 5 days - 6 nights - and if you want to add Venice you need to drop something else - unless yuo want to spend a LOT of time and money getting from one city to another.

I think you will find that spending more time in each place will end up being much more enjoyable.

Separately, you have listed only major cities. If yuo want to see any of the countryside - via day trips from the cities - you are squashing even more places into an already busy trip.

millie2112

for someone age 24 I think this is a great itinerary.
at this age you have the energy to go at this pace.

kja

I think it makes sense, too - kudos!

Adding Venice to the end would complicate things, though, and might make your plan a bit less reasonable.

I'm sure others will have different ideas, but FWIW, I think you can probably enjoy lovely Bruges and delightful Ljubljana with stops of 2 or 3 nights, giving you a bit more time for London (or whichever of the other cities most intrigue you).

Whatever you decide, you'll have some wonderful experiences!

bwergs

Thanks for the responses! I was thinking maybe cutting Krakow and adding even a day and a half in Venice might be good. Cheap flights do seem to be easier to come by from Venice as opposed to Ljublana. . Would love to see Krakow and take a day trip to Auschwitz, and I don't know when else I would do it, but it would be simpler to skip it.

suze

I think it sounds like a good plan! It's fast-paced but not crazy by any means. I only know Amsterdam from your list. And I really do love Venice. So my only personal input might be to cut one place in order to add a few days in Venice at the end.

(Which city is geographically the most out of the way? Or which city are you least excited about?)

bwergs

I have heard many wonderful things about Prague although for some reason I'm not as excited about it. Also it's a place I could perhaps do on a separate trip with Vienna and other places.

bilboburgler

Looks good. I've been to every city you mention, of these I'd spend less time in Bruges and Ljubljana than the other ones. Both cities have very small centres

janisj

Cutting one place to add a couple of days to London (both because it is HUGE and because you'll probably have jet lag for the first day or two) and Venice is reasonable.

One caveat though - US-bound flights out of Venice leave very VERY early AM. You'd have to pay for an expensive 0 dark thirty transfer to the airport. If you could find a way to fit Venice in but not as your last destination it would be better.

For instance you could fly from London to Venice and then do the rest of your itinerary in reverse.

danon

What bob said,
Actually, I would skip LJubljana.

bwergs

Is there a particular reason youd recommend skipping Ljubljana?

Miguel1892

I am somewhat biased I'll say that up front, I lived in Prague for 3 years and would certainly recommend it.

Reasons to keep Prague on your itinerary:

- Its comparatively cheap (not as cheap as it was sadly) but certainly much cheaper than London, Amsterdam and Bruges. A pint of the local beer will cost you about $1.50. Accommodation is also likely to be substantially cheaper than some other cities. I like www.trivago.com for hotel deals. If its hostels you're after you'll be spoiled for choice, there are hundreds.

- If you are looking to party, it goes late. There are a number of really interesting clubs and pubs abound. If you want individual recommendations a bit nearer the time just ask. There are also a number of large beer gardens which are great fun and should still be in full swing in September.

- The city centre is beautiful, very compact and easy to navigate. Although the cobbled streets are hard on the feet and some of the hills leading up from the river are steep. For everything you cant walk there is an amazing (and cheap) network of trams and metros.

- The food scene is getting better month by month. Czech cuisine is heavy on the dumplings and beef or pork but there are some fabulous restaurants specialising in international cuisine. My favourite food blog can be found here http://czechoutchannel.blogspot.co.uk/

I could go on for pages but I'll leave it there for now. If you have any questions just fire away.

Oh and to qualify I have visited all of the other cities on your list with the exception of Ljubljana and Venice so cant comment on those two but London is great (every time I go there to visit friends I think to myself 'I could live here' and then it dawns on me that I've spent about £400 in a weekend and I probably couldn't afford to!). Berlin is great for clubs and the place is steeped in crazy modern history. Amsterdam shocked me because I really liked it when I thought I wouldn't. I'm not into the stoner thing and I travelled there with my girlfriend so the red light district wasn't on the agenda either but it turns out that its a beautiful city with a lot more to offer than you might expect.

Whatever you decide, Happy travels.

isabel

All the cities that you originally mention, plus Venice, are among the most beautiful in Europe (actually have not been to Berlin or Krakow but I've been to all the others - they are all worthwhile). Everyone, including you, seem to agree that cutting one is a good idea so as to have sufficient time in the others. I suggested Krakow because of relatively more difficulty getting there.

Brugge can easily be seen in one or two days, Ljubljana also in two days. Prague and Budapest 'deserve' at least three each. Amsterdam can be seen in two or three but I would give it more since there are several great smaller cities that are extremely easy to see as day trips from there (Haarlem, Delft, Leiden). I could spend a week in any of them and not get bored, but I'm just giving you an idea of how long it takes the average person to see the highlights and get a feel for a place. London of course is the largest and most people never have enough time in London.

I would check flights home from Venice and see if they are all extremely early. That seems to be the consensus here, but I think I've read there are some later. The problem with flying from London to Venice and doing the trip in reverse is that that will take most of a day. So no ideal solution. But having spent a lot of time researching flights from the US to/from Ljubljana I can tell you you'll have cheaper and more flights to chose from if you fly home from Venice (over Ljubljana). Last summer I did a trip that included Ljubljana, London, Amsterdam, Venice and a few other places and I found by far it was cheaper to have my entry and exit points be London and Amsterdam. And Easyjet flies cheaply from London to Ljubljana.

bilboburgler

Ljubljana
Castle, two good museums, two very good shopping & restaurant streets, odd little places. Working hard you can visit the lot in 16 hours.

danon

I just don't find Ljubljana that interesting - compared to the rest of the list.

kja

I thought Ljubljana absolutely charming! Some fascinating and playfully engaging architecture, lively markets, lovely river front, not to mention the things bilboburgler lists. And a nice contrast IMO from other places considered for this itinerary. (And yes, I've been fortunate enough to see them all! ) (Vive La Différence, danon - wouldn't it be horrible if we all traveled for the same things?) Look for isabel's pictures (I'm hope she posted some!).

I think janisj's advice is on target - be sure to consider the costs of getting to the airport in Venice before committing!

isabel

I also absolutely loved Ljubljana. Not even sure I can explain why, it just had everything that makes me love being in Europe. Here's the link to my photos of Ljubljana and the other cities on your list (most of them) - http://www.pbase.com/annforcier

bwergs

Thanks for the advice re: flying out of Venice - I never would have thought about that. Part of what attracts me to Ljubljana is as you said - it seems a nice contrast to the other places and a lovely, calm way to end a lengthy trip.