3wk Europe trip this summer
 

My girlfriend and I, both in our 20s, are planning on taking a trip to Europe this summer. We are thinking about 3 weeks, and want to hit the major spots such as,
UK
Amsterdam
Germany
Italy
France
Spain
This will be our first time going to Europe, and our wondering whether we should plan it ourselves or use a tour? If anyone has good input on the best way to plan a trip like this, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I assume what you really mean is that you want to see six major cities. At 3 days apiece that's 18 days. Plus two days getting to and from Europe. so you have only one extra day.

Moving from one city to another in Eurpe is going to take most of a day, so that means five days in transit. now you are down to 2 days in each city. Is that what you really want to do? If you just want to get a quick taste of the cities, with the intention of going back for more in the future, fine. But if you really want to SEE Europe, it's not possible in three weeks.

I suggest you take more days in fewer cities. Decide which are most important to you, and pare the list. You can do this on your own. It is not necessary to go on a tour. Got some good guidebooks from the library and look them over. Just come back here when you have an itinerary, and we can give suggestions.

If you just want to see highlights, a tour might be best. Using tour means saving time in getting to and from hotels, getting to and into various sights, etc. When you go on your own, you lose time getting tickets are the train station, figuring out what local transportation to use, etc. A tour might provide an efficiency needed to see as many places as you imply you want to see--if it's Tuesday, it must be Belgium. Then you can organize your next European trip on your own.

Your conception is far too broad and also includes 'major sports' which has to be guessed by readers.
This is not a small area and transport is key.
Yes, you can plan this yourself, but you would be foolish to knock yourself out just seeing one city in six countries in 21 days (or will you be on speed?). Presuming flights, one day arriving and departing cannot be counted and will there not be jet lag?
Obtain the guides, do some work, come up with an itinerary and let it be shot at.
Sorry, if this sounds harsh (or am I?).

That is odd you are posting almost the same thing as this thread. I expect you will get the same answers.
http://www.fodors.com/community/trav...ek-october.cfm

I would strongly advocate taking the train if planning on mainly visiting big tourist cities, as most first-time travelers understandably want to do - and if you are under 26 then you can look at the various Youth Railpasses, such as the Eurail Select Pass or Eurail Global Youthpasses - for those under 26 only.

For loads on planning a European rail trip I always spotlight these fine sites IMO - www.budgeteuropetravel.com; www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com. For schedule the German Railways www.bahn.de site is Wunderbar for schedules and info on specific trains all over Europe.

hi Collin,

have you thought what you REALLY want to see? are you particularly interested in art of artchitecture, or do you jsut want a flavour of what europe has to offer, or do you want to mix sightseing with some sporting activities? the reason I ask that is that as you are quite young, you might enjoy doing something active [like cycling for example, which I mention as you have given Holand as somewhere you woudl like to see] as well as the normal cultural activities - somehow IME that tends to make the latter more memorable too!

what NOT to do, I suggest, is to try and cram as many cities and sights in as possible - you will go home exhausted with a whole jumble of memories and no idea where you saw what - which would be a pity.

3 weeks, 6 countries = 2 days each in a country, minus 5 days getting between them plus time eating, finding your way around, etc. = a couple of days each in 6 countries. I think you'd best go back to the drawing board or take an organized tour, because this will probably not be fun.

It may be feasible with an organized tour. I took two tours of about that length in Asia. One was in SE Asia, covering Thailand (Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, and then Phuket), Penang, Sumatra (Lake Toba), Java (Yogyakarta), Bali and an overnight in Singapore. It was well organized and we did not have to worry about logistics. This may be what the OP needs for Europe.

Three weeks is a much shorter time to visit so many places. It is better to select a single country and travel within that country. It will lead to an enjoyable trip and you can explore the various attractions quite comfortably.

I like planning my own trips as opposed to going with a tour - I don't like being on other people's schedules :) I've not done a 3 week trip to Europe, but I have taken a couple 2 week trips and have another in the works. We find that for 2 weeks, 3-4 destinations is good. We try to do at least 2 night stays most places with maybe 1 or 2 single night stays mixed in. For example, this summer we have this itinerary in the works: Bamberg (3 nights), Munich (4 nights), Regensburg (1 night), Prague (5 nights), and Nuremburg (1 night).

We find that slightly longer stays allows us to get to know more about an area than just the highlights and gives us a chance to find the cool places - neat bars or whatever.

3 weeks
6 countries

something I have done zillions of times on my railpass journeys and I love it.

This is a subjective thing and I for one take offense when others tell me that I am daft, etc. each to his own - I for one do not think you 'must spend at least a week in Paris' or similar cities.

Using overnight trains or cheap flights can help such an itinerary - hopping an overnight train say from Barcelona to Paris saves time and hotel costs to boot.

We did 6 countries on my first trip to europe - but it was 5 weeks, we did it by car, and we saw 1 or 2 places in each country (either close to each other or a major city with a day trip). You simply cannot see 6 countries in 3 weeks - not matter how many night trains you take or how much sleep you are willing to go without. You can spend 2 days and get a very brief taste - that's it.

You can see PARTS (and you would have to figure out which based on your interests) of 6 countries - very briefly.

If you don't want to do the work (IMHO at least half the fun) of planning a trip you may want to conisder a tour. A tour covers a LOT of ground in limited time for several reasons - amost all days start at 7 am, you spend a lot of time siting on the bus looking at things out of the window (so "cover" a lot of territory without actually seeing much) and the driver/guide are familiar with the territroy so can find places a little faster. After day 2 or 3 many people just sleep on the bus. You will also drive by many major sights - or have a 5 minute photo op - rather than going inside. You will also have lots of stops to "shop for souvenirs" - tschotckes no one really wants or needs. Unless you take a Con Tiki kegger the majority of tour members will be the age of your parents - or more.

You need to decide how much time you want to spend planning, what pace of travel you want (if I can't spend a couple of hours at the end of the day sitting in a cafe with a drink watching the world go by - the trip is too rushed for me) and if you want lots of set meals in mediocre hotel restaurants, rather than exploring local cuisines and restaurants.

There are no hard and fast rules about how you MUST travel - but there are logistical realities that make some things impossibe.

If you want a tour I would consider Rick Steves

Best of Europe in 21 Days

Starting in the Netherlands, in 21 days you'll experience the best of Amsterdam, Germany's Rhine Valley and Romantic Road, castles and forests of the German-Austrian Tirol, canals of Venice, Renaissance Florence, the art and history of Rome, seaside villages of the Cinque Terre, the majestic Swiss Alps, country charms of France's Burgundy region, and the City of Light — Paris.

http://tours.ricksteves.com/tours11/...code/EUR11/229

Rick Steves tours eliminate many of the down sides mentioned by nytraveler.

You can do your own tour to your own pace a LOT cheaper than Rick Steve's now rather UPSCALE tours! If you want a tour there are many a lot cheaper than Steves'.

PalQ...agree. They'd be better off with a tour IMO..and they have many to pick from.

PalQ...for four years you've had me fooled! Even after we had "talked" about your Chiapas adventures in deepest Mexico, I still took you for a big city dude (NY, Chi, LA, Boston, San Fran, Dallas). Now I come to see that you are a tiny- towner in north central Meeshigan...a community of less than a thousand on a lake shore! You even mention it in your OP on a white Christmas...
PalQ, have a very happy new year, quaffing down the sauce in beautiful downtown Roscommon!

stu tower

Stu - many thanks to you and happy New Year as well. There are two pubs in 'downtown' Roscommon - one grungy one and one, for this area, upscale - I'll be in the grungy Greene Tavern if any at all!


Small town moi.

Cheers.

I'll give you a New Year salute at the Grungy Greene!
stu

Thanks Stu - but in reality that would be the last place I would celebrate New Years - with a bunch of drunks typical to Northern Michigan, one of the most depressed areas in the country. I'll be watching Dick Clark (!) call it out. But I will raise a toast to you and Palenque... thanks.

Pardon these type of comments on this thread but the thread is dead for all purposes.