When I travel I usually go to one place for at least a week then maybe somewhere else then home. I've noticed numerous posters seems to "blast" their way through a country. Why? How do you feel about your trip when you get home? I can understand not spending a week in Milan or Zurich but only spendng 3 days in Rome or 4 days in Paris?

It certainly depends upon the individual and the total time they have as well as the number of opportunities they feel they will have to "visit" Europe. I agree that most major cities take at least 5 nights to a week to really feel you have seen it, but also don't forget that many people will book a week in Paris, then take three or four full day trips going to places like the Loire Valley or Mount St. Michel. If I were trying to do those things within a week, I think I would opt for just four nights in Paris and then spend the other nights nearer the attractions I was visiting. It takes less travel time and affords the opportunity to experience smaller town life at night as well as just during the day.

Like everything else in life, it's a matter of personal preference. That's why often it's so hard to make suggestions on "must sees" and itineraries.Some people feel that they want to cover as much ground as possible, particularly if travel is hard for them to do, or if it's the first trip. Some people even hate Paris, I suppose, and 4 days would be too much.

Hi John, <BR>Well I can't speak for others, I guess it just depends upon what your travel style is. <BR>My husband and I are what you might describe as "Blasters". How do we feel about our trip when we get home??? Fabulous, wonderful and ready to go back! <BR>Since we both have really demanding careers (read: no time off) we settled on a travel style that suites us perfectly. <BR>First of all we are city folk. A night or two in the countryside is great, but a week would send us loony. Then we like to pick several sights that we are dying to see in each place and see them on that particular trip, all the while gathering tons of info the for next trip. <BR>Each time we go to Paris we spend between 2-3 nights there, but we've been 5 times thats 15 days total.We don't have to spend visit 3 or 4 going to Notre Dame we've already seen it and spent an entire day lingering over it's history and beauty. <BR>Given our jobs and our finances this approach works very well for us.. it's an adventure always a new fun city to explore... when I was in college I lived in Dublin for a while and spent months backpacking Europe with my best friend. Hopefully when my husband and I retire we can go back to months on the road and taking cooking classes in Tuscany etc, but until that day, we have kind of adopted the NASA approach to European travel, quicker, smaller, cheaper.. obviously it's not a style that is superior to anyone elese style but it works like a charm for us.

Johnb: You claim you don't understand a "blaster", but then you say that you can understand not spending a week in Milan or Zurich. In retrospect, I hope you can see that it is all a matter of personal preference, opinion and circumstance. Your "Milan" may be another's "Paris" and vice versa. Frankly, there are people on this forum who think your 3 days in Rome or 4 days in Paris is, in fact, "blasting" . I have done both (blasting and lingering"). If I blast, it is a blast and intense: pure adrenaline. I come home a little physically tired, but emotionally high. When I have lingered, the experience is not as intense, but (perhaps) is a little more deep. For me (and this may not be true for everyone) if I really wanted to spend a vacation lingering in one place, I probably should hit the beach instead of Europe.

I've done both sorts of traveling - moving every two/three nights, and staying in one place for 10 or more days (some people might think one week is 'blasting' through a place). They are different types of traveling and vacationing, and as long as you know what to expect, they'll each suit you. We were in Venice for about 1 1/2 days, and we knew we weren't going to see everything, but that was ok. We'll be back for a much longer stay next time. I spent 5 weeks in Paris - not nearly enough time - but I've gone to Paris for a day and been quite happy with my 9 hours. It's sort of like looking through a National Geographic; sometimes I just look at the pictures, sometimes I read the whole article.

I'm with Patrick - I love to spend the 'magic' hours of early evening in many different places. But as with everything else, one person's 'blast' is another person's slow molasses. <BR> <BR>It's the amount of time spent travelling between stops that I try to keep to a minimum, not the number of stops per se.

I have done my share of blasting, with both long and short distances between stops. <BR> <BR>And I think that short-segment blasting sometimes gets a bad name, compared to "lingering" - - where every day (or every other day) is spent "out and back" 90 minutes each direction on "day trips". <BR> <BR>It's true that traveling point A to B to C to D to E eats up a litttle time packing and unpacking, checking in and checking out. But if you pack light, this can amount to very little time. Indeed, we have sometimes had the experience that a lot of stuff gets left in the car and we pack no more than a pillowcase-full that actually gets carried in per stop. The key is to minimize the total amount of time moving around - - whether A to B to C to D to E -- or whether you stay in A and bounce around day-tripping to B, C, D and so on. <BR>