I'm from Tampa and planning a trip with my friend who has a different traveling style than me. I like to experience more days in a city while he wants to "get in, get out" if you will.

Here's our proposed itinerary:
Barcelona 2 nights
Rome 2 nights
Prague 3 nights
Berlin 2 nights
Amsterdam 2 nights
Paris 4 nights
London 4 nights

I just think I will be miserable rushing through cities and have panic attacks thinking about it. Is this doable? Thanks for reading any thoughts you'd like to share.

yep totally crazy,possible if you are not including travelling days, No way would I do that.

It sounds horrible. You will mostly see the inside of trains and planes or train stations and airports and nothing much else.

If you break down the logistics you will realise that 2 nights in a city results in one day at the most to see it before you move on to the next destination.

Fly into Prague

1.Prague 4 nights

2. Berlin 5 nights

3. Amsterdam 3 nights

4. Paris 5 nights

5. London 4 nights

Fly home from London

That would work for me.

The answer is yes and now I will read your itinerary.

It can certainly and quite easily be done but that isn't the point and IMO should not be what you asked.

The answer is: yes you DO need to tell your friend that you are not interested in traveling this way and tell them why. If they refuse to compromise then cancel your participation.

This is going to be an exhausting trip. In Paris and London you have the minimal number of days; 5 days in each is more appropriate than the 3 days you have scheduled. The rest of the trip will consist of moving from one place to another and seeing very little.

I'm a leisurely traveler and tend to spend quite a bit of time in cities. Last year I was in Barcelona for 8 days. This year I'm going to Berlin for 8 days and I'm hard pressed to schedule everything I want to see. You can spend less time in each city but not 1 day which is what 2 nights gives you.

You will also spend a lot of money to travel from one location to another.

I would not do this trip.

Your itinerary counts in as 19 days--indeed. The distances between many of your destinations is a LOT. Do you have a Star Trek transporter. lol
You may have a friend when you begin this, but you won't be at the end.
cut out one or more destinations--Barcelona and Berlin might be my suggestions. Barcelona is certainly the outlier, and maybe Rome--so, one or the other.

Suggest you plan a trip with someone who has the same philosophy you do - seeing something of each place - versus an extensive tour of the trains stations of europe.

If he really likes traveling that way more power to him. But no reason for you to throw away your vacation.

Only Paris and London are even near a reasonable amount of time (although I would do more than 3 days in each place - more like 5). The other days and cities will just be a blur. The first 5 destinations should be 2 destinations - no more. Then you will be able to see something of those cities and even do a couple of day trips into the countryside.

Does your friend understand that two nights is only one full day and that places like Rome have enough major works of art and architecture to fill a life time?

Do they also grasp that one of the reasons Americans love Europe is to linger in a cafe surrounded by lovely old buildings with window boxes trailing flowers, or stroll through open markets with the scent of cheese, wines, and flowers filling the air?

Your friend's pace is just a been there, tick the box off the list. It allows no time for any experience of the places whatsoever. A lot of money for what?

>>Barcelona 2 nights
Rome 2 nights
Prague 3 nights
Berlin 2 nights
Amsterdam 2 nights
Paris 4 nights
London 4 nights<<

Is really: 1.5 jet lagged days in Barcelona; 1 and a skosh days in Rome; 2 days in Prague; 1 day in Berlin; 1.5 days in A'dam; 3.5 days in Paris; 3.5 days in London.

That is a LOT of time and money spent to see next to nothing.

Sounds like your friend is a box checker and doesn't have any interest in seeing/doing much. Mainly just being able to say "Yes, I've been to Rome. No I didn't visit the Vatican or go inside the Coliseum or the Forum"

Don't do it!!!!!!

I agree. Don't do it. I won't stay less than 3 nights any place.
I traveled in Italy with DD, and we stayed 3 nights each in Rome, Florence, Venice, Santa Margherita Ligure, and Nice.
t was a good enough intro plan for me.
DD had already been to those cities, except Nice.

I appreciate all you for responding and being realistic. I need to step my foot down and do what's confortable to me. My plan was 3-4 cities max. I feel a lot better now. Thanks again.

We're doing a 3 week trip this fall and chose 3 main areas to concentrate our time. We chose the Cote D'Azur in France, Barcelona and Seville/Andalucia. My initial list of destinations was larger but I feel I have cut it down so that we will get a good exposure to each of these areas and also have a reasonable amount of travel time that doesn't cut in to our sight seeing and relaxing time. I'm with the group on this one, I like to enjoy a destination, not just pass through it.

Good luck convincing your friend!

I would follow what iris1745 recommends above. Looks like a very sound plan. Still five fantastic locations and percentage wise broken up well.

When I looked at the tag below the title of your post--before even reading your itinerary, I immediately said yes, this is waaaaay too much.

Tell your friend you don't want to travel like this. If she doesn't cut down the itinerary to a reasonable number of places, drop out and go on your own.

I ususally spend two to three weeks per country.

Ohhh, yes, very rushed.

Find another travel partner, by the end of the trip you will hate him (if you last that long). For this itinerary, "get in, get out" sounds right, you have no time to spend in the actual city you are in and out from. Too much money and energy to visit European train stations...

Terrible plan. Fly to Europe with your friend. Dump him/her at the airport and take off on a sensible trip of your own that you can actually enjoy. Let your friend pursue the thesis on European train stations.

Don't do it under any circumstances...you will regret it.

IMHO, three weeks = at most 5 cities <i>if they are close</i>...four is even better...especially if this is your first visit to London, Paris and Rome, which have tons of things to see and do.

On paper, travel between cities looks a lot quicker than it is in real life (packing, check-out/check-in, transport, etc.), especially if you are not super-familiar with local transport to/from stations and need to give yourself a lot of leeway.

SS