Travel5744

Some of my friends and I are looking to take a trip to Europe and this is what we've got so far. We've got about 3 weeks (21 days) total for a trip and are in our early 20's. I am very open to adventure, the outdoors, and new places. We would really like to get to Rome, Venice, and Prague but everything in the middle is not completely decided. We'd also really like to go everywhere via rail because of the experience. Here is one itinerary that we can up with:

Rome (4 days)
Venice (2 days)
Munich (4 days)
Budapest (3-4 days)
Prague (3-4 days)
Total: 18 days + travel time to get it up to 21 days total

I limited the actual days in each city up to a total of 18 days to account for travel time. We are also very interested in Switzerland (because of the mountains) and have discussed skipping Budapest and adding 3-4 days in the Interlaken/Lucerne area in between being in Venice and Munich. We are young but aren't focused on clubbing/partying. We are more interested in exploring and "seeing sights" so to speak.

Anyone have any advice for this itinerary? Would Switzerland be more interesting than Budapest? Would this be too many places for this amount of time? Are there any places in between Venice and Prague that may be more interesting (in terms of cultural exploring / outdoors) that would be easier to travel to? Thanks!

mjs

I don't think you have as much time as you think. Four full days in Rome is fine but requires 5 nights. Venice for two full days is fine but requires 3 nights. I think 3 full days in Munich, Prague and Budapest are fine but this requires 4 nights each so your total already is 20 nights.

michelhuebeli

I don't get it - you list nothing but cities with historic buildings and famous museums, and yet you say you want "adventure, the outdoors".

Where is the adventure in visiting historic old city centers and museums along with thousands of other tourists? And the outdoors are pretty much confined to the sidewalk cafés where you pay triple of what you pay when you stand inside at the bar.

Make up your minds about what it is you want, and if it is really adventure and the outdoors, then we'll have to take an entirely new tack here with our recommendations - these things exist, but not in the cities you list.

Also - recalculate your days. Many are relocation days that you can't count as sightseeing days. It takes two nights to have a full day in one place, your math is off.

KTtravel

If you want to add the outdoors, I would consider adding Switzerland to the mix, particularly the Lauterbrunnen Valley. Since you list Venice, Rome and Prague as priorities, I would cut Budapest and Munich (save them for other trips.)

You could then have something like:
Rome 5 days (6 nights)
Venice 2 days (3 nights)
Prague 3 days (4 nights)
Switzerland 5 days (6 nights)
2 travel days gets you up to 21 days.

Remember that it takes at least half a day to travel between locations.

rbciao47

Wear a money belt. The pickpocket is Italy are maestros at their craft.

Also, IMHO, you have too many places that are far apart, which requires time to transit to all of those locations. We find that less is more when traveling in Europe, especially Italy.

Buon viaggio,

FuryFluffy

Hi Travel5744, good job of you to account for the travel time between cities. It's a common mistake of first time Europe travelers and I'm glad that you avoid it.

I think your itinerary is good. But if you like outdoor activities then Switzerland is an excellent choice. The mountain and lake area around Interlaken is gorgeous. You can replace Budapest with it. Munich, Budapest and Prague do hold some similarities -I would not say that they look alike, but you can easily cut one out of the three and add Switzerland.

You can do Rome -> Venice -> Interlaken -> Munich -> Prague. Mind you, the train is long. You can use rome2rio website to look for transportation ways between cities.

StCirq

I would skip Budapest and spend the time in Switzerland. I agree that your itinerary at present does not match your wish-list of seeing "the outdoors." Do keep in mind, though, that Switzerland will be twice as expensive.

Travel5744

Thanks for all of the advice! I may have misspoke when I added "outdoors" here. As it's our first trip, we are more focused on seeing a few popular cities and then maybe some areas around them (of course this probably won't be possible given our time restraints). I added outdoors because we would all love to see a bit of Switzerland (who's best parts are not cities from what I've read; of course I realize that other countries have beautiful countryside as well but we are limited for time). I will seriously consider cutting Budapest and possibly Munich as well and will look into nailing down a bit better time estimate based on nights spent in each place. Have you all found it worthwhile to go to 4-5 places in this quick of succesion? I know many travelers enjoy spending more time in each place but it's been hard for us to narrow down because there is so much we'd like to see! If we still wanted to do something like Rome -> Venice -> Interlaken -> Munich -> Prague, are there any places we could limit a bit to get down to our 21 day limit? Or are we too close to the travel "whirlwind" threshold so to speak?

FuryFluffy

I find that Rome -> Venice -> Interlaken -> Munich -> Prague is okay for 21 days, especially when you're young. That's what I would do myself.

Rome 5 days (excluded transportation time)
Venice 3 days
Interlaken 5 days
Munich 3 days
Prague 3 days
That makes 19 days. Add in inter-cities transport, and your 21 days is good.

Of course you could always cut it down if you like. If you have to cut down one place, I suggest one of Munich/Prague. But don't.

Steftacular

One word of advice, do Prague First. I just came back from a 2 week euro trip that ended in Prague and we wish we did it first. Now my group is a bit older than yours, in our 30s, but we just didn't have the oomph by the end of the trip to take part in Prague's party culture. We were beat, and tired. You may still be able to party and recover, but we couldn't lol So, just something to think about! I know you can take a bus direct between Prague and Munich... Id start there and work your way down. Have fun!

suze

I *love* Switzerland, so personally I would cut the last 2 or even 3 places and spend it in Switzerland.

Which is more expensive but I did not find it "twice" as expensive as other places.

Venice is another favorite, so definitely keep that!!

marvelousmouse

My advice- after a similar trip- is to substitute half your cities for outdoors adventures. And double your time in Rome if you have any interest in history and archaeology. I got very tired of cities and if it had been better weather, I probably would have changed my city heavy itinerary half way through. But I do understand where you are coming from.

I'd go somewhere else in Bavaria over Munich. It's a great city, but it has all the negative aspects of a city. Go to a small town or national park. If you aren't interested in archaeology, keep Venice but drop Rome. Rome is wonderful. But frustrating as it's large and crowded.

I'd probably do something like rural Germany/Switzerland/Prague/Venice/Amalfi. But that would be my second trip...and admittedly Rome and Munich are both fantastic if you like cities.