How much is too much?
 

I apologize if this title is too vague, but this is precisely my question.

I am relatively new to Fodors, but in the last few months I have noticed a pattern:

Every day there will be a few posters posting "Itinerary" posts asking for opinions. Most of these posters are 1st time visitors to that region of Europe. I would say for the most part, their itineraries are "action-packed".

The seasoned travelers here will then give their opinions, usually suggesting that the "newbies" are "doing too much" and need to cut down on the # of places they want to visit, in order to really enjoy their trips. Even though I am not a seasoned traveler, I have to admit I have made similar comments also.

This got me thinking. I personally have done many whirlwind trips before. An example is a recent trip I took to Italy. In 7.5 days I visited Rome, Pompeii, Capri, AC, Florence & Pisa (yes, I REALLY wanted to climb the tower). I was exhausted but at the same time, I was glad that I went to all these places. With so many other places in the world I would like to visit, it could easily be another 10, 15years before I would go back to Italy again.

Most of the seasoned travelers here visit Europe several times a year and for weeks at a time. Therefore, they have the luxury of spending 1 week at each city to truly enjoy it. However, for others, this is not feasible. Even going to Europe once a year is not something that everybody can afford. Therefore, I can see why some people would like to pack in as much as possible for their trip.

Sometimes it does sadden me when the "newbies" cut out places which they want to visit from their itineraries because they are told that they are "doing too much", or "Save City X for your next trip!"
But one cannot predict the future, right? Things like: starting a family, personal illness, family illness, loosing one's job etc can all make one put traveling become one's last priority. And in today's climate with terrorist bombings, some places are just not worth the risk.

I would like to ask the seasoned travelers: if you think waaaaaaay back to your first few trips to Europe, did you do a whirlwind tour of some sort? And if you did, have you ever regretted it?

I guess there really is no right or wrong answer to my question: how much is too much?

I post this as NOT a critique to anyone. I think the seasoned travelers here give invaluable advice to fellow travelers. These are just my obervations.

Your thoughts & opinions are welcome (but spare me any personal attacks).
Maybe BigBrother will delete this too! &&-

Hi yk,

Many years ago, when I was but a mere callow youth, I zoomed through France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Finland in 3 weeks.

My only regret is that I have hardly any memories of the trip. Even when I look at the photographs.

OTOH, I clearly remember, with the aid of photos and other souvenirs, my slow trips from 30 years ago.

According to research I've read recently, sleep really helps in forming memories. So an itinerary that works by sacrificing sleep might indeed result in fewer memories. I guess this could be a good thing if the trip is a disaster. :)

Well, obviously we all have different ways we like to travel. I often feel that I encourage people to do a lot more hopping around that some of the other more experienced travelers. Some people keep talking about how you'll wear yourself out and won't come home rested from your vacation. I never went to Europe to rest -- I wanted to come back exhausted, but exhillarated!

My first two trips to Europe were each for just one week (part of a special offer for teachers during school vacations). Each were for staying in one city for a week. It was fun, but if anything I wanted to do more than we could do as daytrips from a single location. My first major trip to Europe was for five months and I literally covered most of the continent. Sure, I didn't do great in depth exploration of any area, but I wouldn't go back and change that itinerary for anything. And while today I'm spending a week or even more at a time in many of the places I go, I totally understand the two and three night stays to get a wide variety of cultures and experiences.

Generally the only time I tend to tell posters I think they are trying to do too much is when they mention they have limited time and then describe itineraries which involve an entire day of travel on each side of a single day in one spot.

With today's economy flights, it is possible for someone who wants to experience a wide range of places to hop from one country to another two or three times within a two week period, and I totally understand that plan over simply exploring one region of one country in greater depth for the entire two weeks. In other words I think an itinerary of London, Prague, and Rome makes as much sense for someone as an itinerary of Rome, Florence, and Venice. And for someone who feels they want to experience a wide range of European cultures -- the first itinerary may make even more sense.

Earlier today I also made a comment about enjoying train travel. Depending upon the time and itinerary, I often find a full day traveling by train is not only the one way to sort of unwind and relax after a whirlwind of sightseeing in one region, but a nice way to see some countryside without the hassle of driving (particularly from big city to big city) or missing what's between by flying. These things vary with each person and with the goals for each trip, of course.

I guess I'm a seasoned traveler, and I'm certainly among those who recommend against what I perceive as whirlwind trips, but the fact is, with the exception of my first trip to Europe, which doesn't count because I was being paid to be there as a performer and had no control over the planning or the pace, I've never taken what I'd call a whirlwind trip. I've taken trips where I went to 6-8 countries, but those were during a 6- or 7-week period.

I have, however, taken lots of trips for which I didn't do much logistical planning. I always read as much as I can get my hands on about the history of places I'm going to visit, check on events going on, learn some of the language if I haven't studied it before, scope out restaurants, etc., but I've actually taken far more trips with no set itinerary or hotels lined up than I would ever recommend others to do.So I'll admit to not always following my own advice.

And I agree that for some people, and for many reasons, trying to see as much as you can on a trip is a good approach, maybe even the only possible approach.

On the other hand, all you have to do is read a dozen posts here and you'll realize that a lot of people truly have no idea how far one thing in Europe is from another or how long it will take them to drive between point A and point B, or what's closed on Mondays or Tuesdays, so there are people who are packing too much into a trip out of ignorance as well. And I suppose there are folks who ignore our advice (do you think it's possible?:)) and get to Europe and have a smashing time roaring around anyway! And probably a few who ignore the advice and get there and say to themselves: Geez! Those Fodors guys were right after all!

It takes all types...

If the length of time spent in a place had anything to do with the quality of your memories, then I should remember a whole lot more about Vienna than I do. I lived there for 2 years and after being away for about 18 years, I was amazed at how much I had forgotten!

Memory is a funny thing. Little things that one might not even consider important have stayed with me for years, while other events have, for the most part, gone from my mind completely.

My husband will say, do you remember when we did so and so, and I'll ask him if I was even there because I have no memory of it.

We like to move around on vacation since we are more about scenery than museums, cathedrals, etc. My husband is a great photographer and so we enjoy mountains, lakes, rivers as well as charming street scenes like in Rothenburg.

I have been chided for trying to cram too much into my vacations, but that's how I like to travel. I know it's not for everyone though.

The newbies with their 13 destinations in 15 days (almost) never tell what is the "objective" of the trip.

I know nothing of planning a "safari" trip, but I wonder if those are even more prone to the "I will get there once in a lifetime" notion, and there are people who must get one photo of "a lion, an elephant, a giraffe, a rhino, a hippo, an eland, a wildebeest, a gemsbok and a gorilla" and leave hardly knowing which of them live in what kind of habitat, let alone what current thinking surrounds these animals, their biology, protection issues or anything much else about them.

I have traveled on some of the very most frenetic itineraries. This was a real one - - it was a "scouting" trip, which I realize is an extravagant excess/luxury few other people here ever take:

Day 0 - - fly from Ohio to New Jersey, to visit with brother
Day 1 - - brother takes us to JFK, fly to London
Day 2 - - land LHR, bus to Stansted, Ryanair to Dublin, overnight there
Day 3 - - fly Ryanair Dublin to Paris Beauvais, pickup rental car, drive to Triberg (DE), in the Black Forest
Day 4 - - drive to Rothenburg ob der Tauber, look at a hotel, have lunch, drive to Munich (during Oktoberfest), look at a hotel, drive to Salzburg, check into hotel (bad choice - - glas we learned this!) and have dinner
Day 5 - - 6 am breakfast, drive to Venice, look at a hotel, had lunch, drive to a villa in Orvinio in the Rieti, about 45 minutes northwest of Rome
Day 6 - - visited a different villa, and had a great off-road tour of 9th century Romanesque ruins in Rieti, drove onward to Grasse
Day 7 - - visited (our now current favorite, in all the world) villa in Montauroux, drove onward to see two different villas, one near Gourdon, one near Brignoles, and then onward to stay at Chateau de Longsard, about a half hour north of Lyon
Day 8 - - lunch in Nitry, onward about an hour north of Paris to stay overnight with friends in the Vexin (midway between Giverny and Gisors)
Day 9 - - fly home from Paris to JFK, and then back to Ohio.

We traveled something like 1900 km of highways, both big and small, and "saw" 17 towns or cities in six countries during those seven nights in Europe. Generally accomplished all of our "objectives", which allowed us to make a magnificent trip (16 people) of 17 days, nine months later.

But my point is not that anyone would/should emulate something like this - - but rather that I remember, vividly, almost every place we stayed, ate or stopped. You can argue that I have kept those memories alive, because I live and breathe Europe travel - - indeed I have mentioned virtually every one of these places at one time or another here in this forum.

But ultimately, "too much" is "just right", in the eyes of the beholder.

Best wishes,

Rex

yk, you make a good point that not everyone needs a "slow" travel schedule. The general idea behind this type of discussion board, however, is to get a mosaic of opinions that will provide a larger picture of the truth. And when someone posts an "action packed" but not necessarily "whirlwind" itinerary, it's been my experience that some regulars will always chime in with "I think this is do-able" while others suggest restraint.

But when almost everyone agrees that the poster is making a rookie mistake...the poster is probably making a rookie mistake.

One of the primary sources of misunderstanding on this forum is the fact that many new-ish members want to post their itineraries for emotional validation, and not for constructive criticism. That is understandable, to an extent. But the bottom line is this: <i>we don't you asking, if you don't mind us telling the truth!</i>

...we don't <b>mind</b> you asking, that is.

I agree, to state a conclusion without articulating the assumptions behind it can be misleading.

That many experienced travelers are prone to doing this shows only that it is possible to be an experienced traveller but not necessarily an experienced interviewer of other people.

Likewise, those soliciting advice tend also to assume too much: they ask questions like &quot;how much is too much&quot; while giving little information about themselves and the constraints within which they are willing to live. A similar pattern occurs when asking about hotels - they ask for a 'reasonably' priced hotel, with no info given about what they consider reasonable or even the season of their trip.

Interestingly, few people on this board would ever declare that someone is spending 'too much' for hotel rooms without knowing more about their subject's fiscal goals. Yet similar conclusions are drawn about time budgets all the time.

Of course, sometimes it is simply a case of giving someone a quick-and-dirty answer, especially if that someone isn't willing to subject themselves to detailed questions about their goals. (&quot;hit and run&quot; posters aren't uncommon here - i.e. they ask something, but are never heard from again.) And some things are not a matter for debate: finding a four-star hotel in Venice for $100 on a holiday weekend is pretty nigh well impossible, just as it is also impossible to leave at 6 am from, oh, Rothenburg and make a flight that leaves Frankfurt at 9 a.m.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, yk. &quot;Quantity&quot; vs. &quot;quality&quot; is, indeed, an ongoing point of discussion (and contention.)

I have no regrets doing the &quot;quantity&quot; seeing-as-many-places-as-I-can-on-a-Eurail-pass thing during a couple of my earliest trips to Europe and could, conceivably, do one again sometime. The benefit was getting a brief overview of many places and then deciding, from that, which places I'd love to see again in more depth. A mere two days each in Cinque Terre &amp; Venice - and a daytrip to Siena from Florence -- on a &quot;quantity&quot; trip in 1987, for example, convinced me to return to all three places for more &quot;quality&quot;, which I did two years ago (spending a glorious seven days in La Serenissima, four days in Vernazza, and in Siena, as a base for exploring Tuscany.)

My advice to people with this dilemma is typically to ask them if they think they'll be able to return in the near future. If not, then I suggest going ahead and seeing as many places as they can (e.g. if someone wasn't sure when they'd be able to return to Italy, I think it would be a shame to skip Venice entirely to spend more time in other Italian locations, just because it is such a unique and fascinating city.)

&gt;&gt;Interestingly, few people on this board would ever declare that someone is spending 'too much' for hotel rooms without knowing more about their subject's fiscal goals.&lt;&lt;

Sue_xx_yy, actually people on this board did suggest my hotel budget in Paris was too low for what I wanted. I considered the issue extensively, and decided they were right!

I think you make a lot of assumptions which aren't necessarily true, such as this one: &lt;&lt;Most of the seasoned travelers here visit Europe several times a year and for weeks at a time.&gt;&gt; YOu don't know if this is true or not. I don't know about others, but I think I'm a fairly seasoned traveler and no, I do not go to Europe several times a year and for weeks at a time each time. I think you are just assuming that because you think anyone who doesn't want to do a whirlwind tour must be like that.

I have never, even when starting to travel and when I was fairly poor, taken a whirlwind tour that covered so many sights and countries as some of the itineraries asked about. Never. The most I've done is 3 countries in one trip, with 3-4 days in one city for two of those countries, and about a week in the third. That was a small area, England, Scotland and Ireland.

In any case, I think anyone who asked for general advice from anyone on a public forum is obviously just going to get people's personal opinions when they ask a qualitative rather than objective question (am I doing too much?). There's no way to answer that except how you feel about it, which I always thought was what these people were asking about. They want a poll, so to speak, of how many people think that is too much.

I don't think it's sad if someone changes itineraries and cuts out places they really want to see solely because of an opinion from someone they don't know. It's their own choice and probably means they don't have strong feelings about it or have much idea at all about what they are doing. Even my first time traveling, I wouldn't have done that if I knew perfectly well I could see a place and wanted to see it, just because someone I didn't know told me not to.

I think your complaint is not logical as anyone asking for an opinion (what is too much) is going to get an opinion.

Thanks for your very interesting and thought provoking post yk. I find myself travelling both ways. Sometimes I stay in one place and really get in depth and others consist of a stop in a place for a day or two or three. A few years ago I stayed in Rome for about 10 days and just loved it. While the time before that was a whirlwind 3 week trip to Europe which covered a variety of places in Italy, Switzerland and Austria. Both were awesome.

My next trip is a Mediterranean cruise which starts and ends in Rome with stops in Barcelona, Villefranche, Naples, Mykonos, Santorini and Malta with 5 days in Rome afterwards. I'm extremely excited about this trip and am looking forward to seeing all these places. Whirlwind, yes... will I be packing a lot into each port... absolutely. But then the glorious 5 days in Rome afterwards... of course it's not nearly enough, but I'll hopefully be getting the best of both worlds... whirlwind and in depth. And then I can decide which of the whirlwind stops I'd like to visit again in more depth.

Thanks for bringing up a good point. We are all different and have different preferences when it comes to which way we prefer to travel. As for me, I find that both ways have their merit.

Have a great day yk.

Helen

These go-go-go trips have never been very satisfying to me. Last September I decided that I did not want to drive in Ireland, and I booked a bus tour with Insight. Big mistake for many reasons, including Insight the company as well as the tour itinerary.

On the tour, we rode the bus, stopped for shopping frequently, ate bad food, and stayed in funny hotels.

When it came to the Dingle Peninsula, the Ring of Kerry, and the Cliffs of Moher, we mostly breezed on by.

My six top memories of the trip in order of vividness are these:
1. The Cliffs of Moher. We had exactly 40 minutes at the Cliffs. (A travesty in my book.) That was about enough time to walk to the cliffs, take a look over the edge at the surf, and walk back to the bus.
2. The Earl of Desmond Hotel in Tralee. Nothing about it was of memorable high quality; it was quirks that made it a &quot;high light&quot;. (Or is low light better?) We found the toilet handle inside the shower, which got a good laugh. And the second night about 2 AM a shouting match ensued between guests within the hotel and members of a wedding party in the parking lot. Some colorful language was employed to exchange terms of endearment. The discussion was made more memorable by the variety of accents from all parts of the English speaking world.
3. Blarney Mills. Nice crystal.
4. &quot;Tourist Trap Castle&quot; near Ennis. The food was punk and the whole atmosphere reeked of American Tourist.
(We sang Take Me Out to the Ball Game!). On the good side, the young ladies who sang for us were trained well and had beautiful voices. It was a neutralizing blend of YUK and WOW.
5. The Ring of Kerry. (Dingle maybe?) Not so much the scenery, because it whizzed by in a blur, but for the &quot;car jam&quot; where a silly driver got her car wedged between the rocks and the bus to the extent that neither could move without damage. Five guys got off the bus, picked up the rear end of the little car, and moved it over about 3 feet so the bus could squeeze by.
6. The food everywhere. What we ate, or did not eat, called attention to itself because it was yukky to uneatable. None of it rose above the rank or mediocre to poor. When we ate on our own, pizza was the meal of choice.

Some days I absolutely do not remember where we went, what we saw, or why we were there. After we finished the tour and freelanced a trip to Sligo, I remember more because we had to do it ourselves. But the bus tour part is mainly a blur. Mostly it is unmemorable and the things I remember it for are hardly the stuff of legend. A tour where bad food, the location of a toilet handle, and a shouting match rank as 3 of the top highlights somehow does not appeal to me as something to repeat.

yk:

WOW! What a great question. Thank You for the intellectual stimulation.

Let me go get my afternoon cocktail and I'll respond...


Ok, I am back!

When I first came to these boards YEARS ago I lurked. I lurked because I was intimidated by the posters and all of their travel &quot;knowledge&quot;...

Eventually, it takes about three months, you realize that these post are simply the experiences not templates on how to go to say Rome, of the people posting them.

Could not tell me that when I stumbled into this playground...

I hesitated to post on questions for things that I KNEW VERY WELL for &quot;fear&quot; that I would be attacked etc...well, even YEARS later one still gets attacked, stalked and confronted or harassed...no worries.

I do cringe when someone does change their travel plans out of the &quot;Too Much&quot; camp especially when what they had planned is really not too much.

I do always IMPLORE these folks who are being lead to remember that it is THERE TRIP and to please follow their instincts, intuition and the like...some of ya'll scare me at times trying to cut folks travel down to a crawl.

Some of ya'll scare me with your packing, fashion and shoe suggestions...SCARY! I am the one who brings all that I need in as many suitcases as I want and I am the one who has two different coordinated and fashionable outfits per travel day. I am the one whose shoes must be numerous and stylish. I am the one who is a girly-girl with cosmetics,parfumes, shower gels, bath salts, candles, wines and you name it, I pack it and use it.

I am the one...

Now, if someone is trying to see a whole country in a day or trying to drive from San Diego to Eureka in a day while stopping in Hollywood, Monterey, Yosomite, SF, Lake Tahoe,both wine countries and then hit the beach I too will chime in and say...No way vs. &quot;too Much&quot;.

I do think that one's up bringing, age, gender, income, personal travel experience, education, geographic location, marital status, class, style and other relevant factors can shade the advice given to those new and old to Fodors.

I do think that many believe that Fodorites are &quot;about-the-same&quot; race, age and maybe income levels give or take a dollar or two...many believed/believe that I was a man until I finally &quot;outed&quot; myself as a woman, married with a teenage son.

On itineries...mine are &quot;action-packed&quot;.
I just don't tell ALL my travel business because I am not trying to impress nor seek approval.

I do like to share but MANY of my adventures will not be &quot;televised&quot; least I be criticized for doing this that or the other...I had fun though. I tell you that I have had me some fun doing waaayyyy &quot;too much&quot;.

Another point...even if you have a month long or 6 month long trip outlined someone is going to always say...you are doing &quot;too much&quot;.

I think another factor enters in here and its called envy. Now certainly not all suffer from this occasional &quot;cold&quot; blanket but some do.

Another factor here is called grumpy, bored, tired, and being out of patience.

Many of the old timers, myself included come down with these symptoms from time to time and we do effect the experience, as Fodors says, of one's visit to Fodors...

YK: The Fodor folks do not go to Europe several times per year etc...
On threads such as Where will you travel 2004 and where did you go 2003 will give you a fairly accurate snapshot of who the Fodor folk are.

In Closing... my cocktail is near empty...I will add that travel advice like fashion advice, marital advice, parenting advice, career advice, pet advice, car advice, hair coloring advice, real estate advice, investment advice, legal advice and advice on advice are simply that: advice.

On &quot;too much&quot;...I love the phrase as I hear it often. My son for instance will say: Today Mom, when you were at my school you were trying to re-do the Senior class trip, Graduation music, replace the Senior Ball Chairmom and kiss the head of my school's backside...MOM, you are doing waaayyy too much!

He's Right...cocktail is gone and so am I.

Too Much,
Oaktown Traveler

I guess I consider myself a newbie. And we're not usually in the position to travel outside the country more than once a year. Sold my soul to the company store. So, given that, I probably shouldn't be answering. I do very much appreciate the experience that people posting here who have those opportunities and their willingness to share them.

Just in thinking about the question itself though... I kind of think it has a lot to do with what kind of traveler you're talking about. Not just the beach vs museum thing, but also the detailed vs big picture personalities (or moods) and the &quot;world&quot; traveler vs those that enjoy a comfort zone in their holidays.

I always read where people are saying &quot;save it for your next trip, you'll be back&quot;. Well, yes... could be. I'm like you though. I've got a very large list of places in the world that I'd like to see. Eventually I'm going to have to accept that I'm not going to see them all. So, do you take 5 trips to Italy, making sure to see both Cortona AND Assisi at some point? Will one of those trips come at the expense of walking along the Great Wall of China? Seeing Everest? The pyramids? If you're only going to make so much money in your life and have so much free time, there has to be a trade off. For those who have found their one or two places where it's &quot;their place&quot;, like Italy or Paris, then I can see where they'd feel that surely there must be a return. But for those with the infamous list, wanting to cover some ground may make more sense.

Personally, I could enjoy either way, but it is tough when it's time to move on and you're leaving behind some unseen treasures. Then again, some of my favorite times have been along the road in between, gawking at some scenic valley that I wasn't even expecting.

It seems to me that it is a matter of evolution based on experience and, I hate to say it, age.
We have done 22 trips to Europe ranging from 10 days to 2 months. Some of the earlier trips were typical of the whirlwind itineraires I see posted here. As we got smarter, and older, we came to appreciate that less often becomes more. We had made 8 trips to Italy before I ever set foot in Rome. Blasphemy? Not really. We just decided that Rome deserved more time, so we eventually gave it a solid week.
I have been a regular on this forum for over 7 years now. I hate to think of the number of &quot; newbie&quot; itineraires that I have critiqued. However, it seems to me that the newbie came to this forum to benefit from my experience. Would you have me merely validate their creative itinerary or to give them my best advice based on my experience? They deserve the latter.

When I was about 20 years old, I spent two months in Paris and was SURE I would be back within 5 years. That was before I got my first real job, which had one whole week of vacation after one year of employment. Then came kids, lots of moves, and other financial priorities. Finally, in 2001 (18 years later!), I made it back! It was fabulous and a bit surreal.

On that six-week trip with a husband and two kids (ages 9 and 12), we experienced an ambitious but utterly memorable adventure that covered Germany, France, England, Wales, and Ireland. We had mostly 2 and 3 night stays, a long week in Paris, and a handful of one-nighters thrown in when it got us from point A to point B. We all loved it, and with only a couple of exceptions, I wouldn't change a thing.

Now I'm beginning to plan a 3 week trip to Italy for June 2005, and am striving for a similar balance of being on the go and relaxing in one place. I've relapsed into a total Fodor's addict again, and will be here often with lots of questions about what to give up and what to keep in.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
Carmen

I am also relatively new to this forum.

Travel is such a personal experience and each of us needs to discover our objectives (which has been said) and what it is that we truly enjoy. Then do it. Much of what I love about travel is discovery. I'd rather not discover what I call the &quot;yucky&quot; bits, like sitting in airports, train stations, checking in and out of hotels. I enjoy absorbing a place; so, for me, it's a slower pace.

My first trip to Europe was a business trip to London. I was there for two and a half weeks. I toured in the evenings and weekends. There is no way I could have kept up my Friday night, Saturday and Sunday touring pace the entire length of time. I simply loved this trip because I was able to be inside the culture, with the locals eating their pub lunches; enjoying dinner in their homes and being chauffered to some tourist destinations on the weekends. It was wonderful.

There is no right or wrong way to approach travel. That said, I also believe that when I see a post by someone who's making a first trip, a once in a lifetime trip, etc and they have an impractical schedule, I sometimes think they do not understand the distances and travel times involved. I think it's a courtesy to point that sort of thing out.

Another thing to think about is the definition of 'seasoned traveler'. Is it one who travels? Is it one who travels all over Europe? Is it one who travels all over the world? Is how one travels?

Why travel?

-Sharon

yk: Great topic!

Oaktown traveller: Terrific response! If a good drink can make you so loquacious, then imbibe some more! :)

I'm kind of a newbie, altho being dubbed part of the Borg probably makes me an oldbie.

At this moment my take is that I don't know how much is too much for any particular poster. So, if the trip is anywhere within reason, I always try to look at it from the poster's point of view and go from there. After all, each poster is sole judge of what is too much or too little for himself/herself.

If someone wants to drive from San Diego to Eureka in one day and stop by nine different attractions - well, it's possible. After all, I once drove over 1000 miles east to west across the US in one day ( I was in a hurry to get home).

BUT, I always read with interest what others have to say on this board, especially those who say &quot;too much!!!&quot; and give wonderful, rational, and experienced reasons. It's all part of the fun of travel that there is a plethora of styles out there and each one as interesting as the last.

My personal style is to zoom along - I love to drive. Just the drive is enough for me. In Europe, zooming along has its disadvantages, because there are only so many old castles and paintings that one can take in one day. So, it's skip this or skip that, like driving right past Melk or Vienna to some quiet little spot that no one has heard of. But that's OK too - at least for me. I don't have a need to hit all the &quot;big&quot; ones.

So, generally, in response, I'd say, &quot;It's possible, but not advisable&quot;, detail why, give a few alternatives and leave it at that. If the poster takes my advice, fine; if not, fine too. There's always another poster, another destination, another interesting thread to read. :)

Now, back to my glass of red wine ((d))

Thank you to all for your thoughts and comments. As I mentioned in my original post, there is no right/wrong answer to my question. Everybody has his/her own travel style.

I would say for the most part, I belong to the &quot;quantity&quot; group for now. I recently bought the book &quot;1000 places to see before you die&quot;. It makes me realize how many different places I want to visit. Even though I am only in my early 30's, I figure that I have to visit 20 places every year for the next 50yrs in order to see it all! No, don't get me wrong, I am not traveling just to cross things off from the book, rather, the book opens up more ideas &amp; places for me to travel to. So, maybe when I am 85, older and wiser, I will switch to a &quot;quality&quot; traveler.

Carmen, I so relate with your experience. I lived in Florence for a while a few moons ago. I left thinking that I would be back before too long. Have been to Europe a few times since then, but for various reasons never made it to Firenze.

Last year (and 20 years later), while in Rome and with little time to spare, decided that I had to go back if only for a couple of hours. Took an early morning train, spent an amazing 10 hours in Florence visiting with old friends and enjoying a few of my old haunts and got back to Rome in time for a dinner appointment. It was rushed, but a wonderful experience nevertheless.

So, while I agree with the ?more slowly, is better? camp most of the time, not all traveling can or should be done slowly. It all depends on the circumstances, and in many instances seeing just the surface is more than enough.

&quot;... actually people on this board did suggest my hotel budget in Paris was too low for what I wanted. I considered the issue extensively, and decided they were right!&quot;

Willtravel, I guess I didn't explain it very well. I was trying to point out that respondents to posts don't usually draw conclusions about what is too much (as opposed to too low) for a hotel budget without knowing, as you said, what the poster wanted. In this instance, they recognize that it would make no sense to say, 'you're spending way too much for hotels' without knowing something about the poster's specific goals, including their desired hotel category and season (and assuming, of course,that they aren't asking a question about whether the vendor of a given hotel is overcharging). Yet our views on time budgets are often more absolute, yet not necessarily with justification. Isn't it similarly a premature conclusion to say &quot;you're trying to do too much&quot; unless something about the person's overall travel goals are known? Clifton and Carmen make the excellent point that people often don't make it back. How often have we heard people who are shoppers say, &quot;I wish I had bought it when I first saw it, instead of waiting for a better opportunity.&quot;

I love this post. Every time I read this board I think of the times I have taken whirlwind trips and how much fun
I had. I spent one day in Paris (What a waste!) with my father when I was 19 where we saw very little but I remember
almost every second of that day.
I remember the outdoor cafe where we had bread, cheese and wine. I remember laughing because we almost missed our train. Maybe we should have &quot;saved&quot; it for another trip and spent more time in Germany, but guess what? There hasn't been another trip to Paris; I've had kids and illnesses and different trips. But I had one glorious day in Paris and eventually I will return.

Sometimes when I've seen the &quot;you're trying to go too many places&quot; responses I've been tempted to post the itinerary of my 1976 EurailPass trip (not saying I'd already done it), ask for advice and see what responses I'd get. I imagine they'd start with &quot;it's impossible&quot;, since it involved 85 trains in 30 days. These days I'm more likely to rent a car than take trains, but I still like to cover a lot of ground and seldom stay in the same place 2 nights in a row. If I tried staying in each place for a week like some people advise, I'd be bored silly.

Interesting thread. I was rather amused to see someone describe 6-8 countries in 6-7 weeks as &quot;not a whirlwind trip&quot;. But its a personal thing. I tend toward the whirlwind myself, but that's only because the cost of getting to Europe makes it a once-in-a-lifetime treat for people from my part of the world. I've been lucky, I've been several times, but the pressure to justify the outlay still applies. But if things get too much and I have to drop something from my itinerary, I don't fret - I take the philosophical view that &quot;what I did see was every bit as great as what I didn't see&quot;. It helps cope.

My personal opinion is that the transport and administration (like checking into a hotel, hanging around the train station, etc.) part of a trip is usually not that fun (or at least not as fun as the sightseeing part).

So if X% of your time is spent in transport and admin, that means you get fewer hours on the ground to sightsee, walk around, take tours, or whatever you like to do. The lower the value of X, the more time you actually get for the enjoyable parts. Thus, if you try to see 10 places in 10 days, you have much less time to actually see things than if you see 3 places in 10 days.

I have taken slower paced trips and &quot;whirlwind&quot; trips. When I take a fast paced trip, I spend more money to do things quickly; more taxis,etc. I also find that I don't spend less time sightseeing, I just have much longer days. I am also not much on food, I like simple healthy food so on a whirlwind trip I may eat a sandwich on a train while others are unwinding with a big meal at a fancy restaurant. It also depends on how fast paced your life is. At times when my life is busy, I like a slower itinerary. Right now, life is easy going and a fast paced trip gets my adrenaline going. To each his own.

85 trains in 30 days would not be an ideal vacation for me. And I will never be bored silly by spending a week in London, Paris, Rome or any of the other great European destinations. But I also feel that it is your vacation. Whatever gives you the most enjoyment - vacations are for having a great time and taking a break from the everyday routine.

I agree with Patrick - I don't go to Europe to rest. That is what work is for!!

Yes, my first trip through Europe was whirlwind, and I've regretted the waste of time and money ever since. I was expert at European transportation systems, and I had photos of me in front of the Eiffel Tower, me in front of Basilica San Marco, me in front of the Trevi Fountain, me in front of the statue of David, me in front of this and that.

And that was the sum total of my experience. I've gotten more out of the travel channel.

When I read this title about 3 hours ago, I thought I would make a few comments. Now after Scotch before dinner, wine during dinner and strawberry liqueur after dinner, I don't know if I should bother.

Well, I will.

As age takes its toll on our bodies, we realize that there are many things and places that still attract us. Though we had never taken guided tours until a few years ago, we decided that to see some of the things we wanted to see, it might be the only way.

A guided tour of France enabled us to see Carcasonne and Mont St. Michel in one visit to France. I know, you really have to be there after the tour buses have left say the experts. Do I regret not spending more time in either? Sure, but the brief visit was a lot better than never.

Many may make only a single or at most a few trips to Europe and to discourage what appears to be a rushed itinerary is wrong just because you have had the luxury of leisurely and frequent visits.

One size will never fit all when travelling. I think people need to be very realistic when planning, and consider how much time they have total, how much time they will spend on &quot;productive&quot; holiday time vs. &quot;logistical/unproductive&quot; holiday time. Unfortunately this only comes with travel experience...and so many novices underestimate the hassles and fatigue associated with airports these days! Personally, I hate packing and unpacking...I consider all time transfering to, waiting in airports and travelling on trains completely unproductive. So I minimize that. Trains may actually be enjoyable in Europe, and (other than packing and unpacking) this could even be fun. Most intercity driving--not fun...unless in a scenic area, where you need to allow time to take it slow.

And they often don't understand their own preferences in this regard until they have done a couple trips of different types.

I think what makes a successful and enjoyable trip is to be honest &amp; match your travel pace to your personality. If you are the kind of person who does a dozen things before noon on Saturday, well then have at 5 cities in 5 days! You'll probably love it.

I am a sit on the sofa and read a library book for hours person, so my happiest travel involves only one or two destinations, with at least 5 days in any place I visit, lots of time for sitting in parks, going to local markets, drinking wine in sidewalk cafes.

I disagree, suze: I'm a total Type A personality at home and a total go-with-the-flow person on vacation. I take well-planned vacations if I'm going somewhere new, and no-plan vacations if I'm going somewhere I've been before and feel comfortable with, but I do take VACATIONS from my usual frenetic routines no matter where I'm going. I definitely do not transfer my regular lifestyle to my vacation lifestyle except in the odd case where I am going to a completely new and unknown vacation spot where I have to do a huge amount of planning in advance just because of all the unknowns - and even then I am laid back when I get there and ready to deal with the unexpected.

I recently took my daughter on a 5-day college visit trip to Northern California, for example. I think I put ten times more effort into planning that trip than I have ever put into visiting Europe. I felt I was a total Type-A plan-this-down-to-the-minute mother when it came to planning it, calling and e-mailing friends in CA, researching on the web, buying guides, calling the SF Chamber of Commerce, contacting all the colleges of course, you name it. But when we actually got there, we had a very relaxed time - in part because we knew what we were doing but also because, hey, this WAS basically vacation time.
So I don't think one's vacation style is necessarily ANYTHING like one's normal style of living. Mine's definitely NOT!

StCirq brings up an interesting paradox. My husband is a typeA personality until he clocks out on vacation...couldn't find a more mellow, go-with-the-flow, change-your-plan-if-you-want-to guy around.

As a reformed plan-everything-down-to-the last-second personality, I kind of like it his way. Spontaneous = adventure.

Not to say pre-planning shouldn't be done as it helps you be aware of options available so that it is Successful spontaneous.

yk: I'm such a newbie, I thought you were an oldie!

I had exactly the experience you described (&quot;Too much! too much!&quot; they cried at once!) and at first felt somewhat discouraged until I realized that for any topic, any sight, any style of travel - I could find mixed opinions. And what better preparation for the variety we seek in our travels than the differences we find on this information highway? I am touched by the generosity shown by so many, whether the advice I read suits me or not.

Now I must go back to my evolving itinerary. There are a few more stops I need to add...thanks for the encouragement.

I stumbled upon this old thread while searching for information on Montauroux and think it's a gem. A couple of years ago our children (in their early 20's) traveled from London to Paris, Innsbruck, Venice, and Rome, then met us in a house on top of a hill outside of Lucca that was 30 minutes from anywhere. Although they're glad they've seen the other places and had the experience of traveling on their own, those lazy days by the pool next to the vineyard and the outdoor dinners with family and friends are what they talk about now (and where they want to return).

Rex, I loved your &quot;scouting&quot; itinerary! It made me feel much better about my October scouting trip that will only cover from Vence to Seillans.
(I'm trying to find a place similar to the one outside of Lucca in the hills of the Cote d'Azur/Var. We can make a trip to the coast, hit a few perched villages, and see some of my beloved Matisse, but mostly just relax and enjoy being in France.)

Thanks to all on this board. I love the philosophical postings as much as the practical advice.