Looking for advice to plan a huge summer trip to Europe
 

Hi all,

I'm new here, but have read many of the discussions and thought I should ask for some advice and opinions. As a present to myself for finally finishing all of my education, I am going (with maybe one friend for part of the trip) to Europe next summer - late July through September. Time is not really an issue (but I'm thinking around 6 weeks, give or take) nor is money (though I would rather stay in 2-3 star hotels with good locations for public transport and attractions, in safe areas, etc., and spend more money on shopping and good food!). I'm the plan-ahead type so I would make hotel and flight reservations, purchase a flexible train pass, etc. I know summer is not the best time for much of Europe, but it's August or never so I choose August!

But I am worried about being a dead (wo)man walking halfway through the trip. I fear, though, that even if I swear to come back one day, I won't, so I've laid out a provisional itinerary trying to hit the cities that I really really really want to see, trying to organize it at least fairly logically in terms of geography (but putting Italy last because everyone has told me going there in August is a huge no-no). So I'm torn. Every time I think about taking out one of the cities, though, my ambitious side takes over and tells me this could be my only chance.

I'm not one to care much about waiting in long lines and paying big fees to see the museums and touristy things - I'd rather stroll around cities and absorb the culture as opposed to hitting every main attraction. And that's why I'd prefer to plan it all on my own instead of some kind of a tour where I'd have less leeway in doing what *I* really want to do.

Am I absolutely crazy? Is this kind of ambitious trip actually possible? If yes or no, any tips on how I can do it the best or how I can adjust the plans to really get a taste of the best of Europe and not run myself into the ground? I'm young, but not superhuman! I am the type to get a lot of sleep each night and I would plan to take it easy in my hotel every evening after dinner, plus I like the idea of taking a lot of train rides as a chance to see the countryside and rest the legs.

Here's the itinerary I've conjured up at this point - any advice/opinions from those more experienced is most welcome.

~Fly from Los Angeles to London
~Stratford-upon-avon (3 nights)
~Lisbon (4 nights)
~Barcelona (4 nights)
~Nice(3 nights)
~Vienna (3-4 nights)
~Prague (3 nights)
~Stockholm (3 nights)
~Copenhagen (4 nights)
~Amsterdam (3 nights)
~Belgium (3 nights)
~Venice (3 nights)
~Florence (3 nights)
~Rome (3 nights)
~Fly home

Thanks and I appreciate it in advance!

I'd hate that trip.

Since you asked for advice, I suggest that you rent six apartments in six different locations. Since you are determined to go in late-July August, I suggest that you not pick the worst places for heat.

I would go for a week in London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Belgium (Antwerp would be my choice), and 1 week in the Scandanavian countryside.

A huge part of the problem with the itinerary you have laid out is that if anything goes wrong -- you get sick, you lose something important, you miss a flight or train -- you've not built in any cushion. You cannot go without hotel reservations to these cities, and you will be a prisoner of your itinerary.

You must be fairly young to even be considering such a grueling marathon. You'll have other chances to see Europe. Don't cheat yourself of the chance to follow your nose, wander, get to know the locals or a side of Europe that isn't in the tourbooks by galloping through Europe's capitals.

Well, first, welcome and congratulations on finishing all of your (formal, I presume) education. Now's when you get educated, if you get my meaning.

Others will certainly chime in (this is a "red meat" question) but my view is not that it's too much (which I think it is) but that it's imbalanced.

You've got a dozen cities (plus "Belgium" which I suspect means Brussels, Antwerp or Brugge,) and only Stratford as a small town - and it's not that small, especially in tourist terms. While obviously Rome is different from Stockholm, or Venice from A'dam, they all have certain things in common, i.e., size and lack of rural countryside or pieces of the "slow" life of villages, mountains, moors, forests or country roads, which many of us feel are essential parts of the European experience.

Many people (us included) feel that by the seventh or ninth big city in a few weeks one is citied-out, and it's actually a disservice to the places that are late on the list. By the time you get to Rome you could well be so footsore or bleary from another train station or subway system or negotiating for laundry services, that you can't give the city its due.

So my recommendation would be to pare your list to half or fewer targets, and set aside one or more blocks of time to go to some rural area and hang out in a village or farm-stay; stay in one small place for a few days. Sleep late, go for walks down paths or through the woods, become a temporary "regular" at some town-square cafe or pub or bakery. Go to the beach. If it's August, get to find out what the hell all those French people do exactly while they're not at home. (Be afraid.)

Just my opinion, of course, but some countryside/village time will be relaxing, enlightening, and will re-energize you for the next big city on your list.

Cut the number of cities in half.

I was intriqued by your post until I started reading the actual itinerary. Let me get this straight -- you're flying to the UK to spend 3 nights in Stratford-upon-Avon and then leaving? That's it? Sorry, but I stopped reading after that. You need to do some serious thinking -- or else major explaining. No London, but three days in Stratford? I couldn't even read any more after that.

The distances between each place are enormous. I'd feel like a human pinball. How would you get from place to place? That's a lot of moving around in 6 weeks. Neither that many flights nor that many long train rides would appeal to me. Plus, you're mentioning mainly big cities which, if you see them properly, doesn't give you much time for getting out into the countryside. Why not limit yourself to three countries that you're really dying to see, and go for depth over breadth?

Also, your list seems kind of random to me. Why not Paris? Why no other places in Portugal? Have you heard of Sintra? Or the Algarve? Why not do all of those places, then some cities in Central Spain and THEN Barcelona? Or if Nice appeals to you, see it along with the rest of Provence and the Riviera. I could be perfectly happy spending 6 weeks thoroughly exploring this region, along with Paris! It seems like you've chosen some very high profile places, as though you haven't really researched all each of the countries has to offer.

On the other hand, 6 weeks is a long time, so an aggressive itinerary CAN be done if you really want a taste of all of these countries. But, if that's the case, look at a map and cut down on the distances. It makes no sense to save Italy for last according to your list. If you're in Nice, Italy should come next, logically.

Still, I think you should think about my initial suggestion.

Thanks all! I really appreciate the input (and quite frankly I knew deep down that this was what you were going to say, but I'm stubborn).

nessundorma - Just to clarify, it's not that I want to go in and around August, it's the only time I CAN go. So if my choice is going then or not going, I'm going to go! Yes, I am pretty young, but, as i said, not superhuman!

The reason I didn't include London and Paris on my list is because I took an extremely extensive trip to London and don't really feel the need to go back (I'd much rather see Shakespeare country in Stratford - it's a passion of mine), and... well, I just don't really have the desire to go to Paris - for several reasons which aren't necessary to delve into, but I guarantee I put serious thought into it. I suppose I should've explained this in my original post. Sorry!

Thanks Gardyloo, you all seem so kind and helpful and honest here from what I read which is why I decided to finally post - and yes, formal education ;) I thought about the "citied-out" problem, but I guess I am kind of concerned about being a younger female traveling alone, not quite sure where I'm going, not knowing the languages (at all, save French), not having a car, etc., so it seemed that really going into the country would be even more difficult. And I've always thought of myself as a city person and never really enjoyed the country much (I'm very easily bored) - I actually enjoy being busy and things to do. Spending time on a farm, to me, sounds really, well, not fun at all.

But you've hit exactly what worries me the most - the sheer volume of walking and that I'll simply be too tired partway through.

NeoPatrick - I've responded to your concern above - and certainly I adored London but I'd rather take that time to explore somewhere new. Sorry again, I see how it would look insane to plan a big trip to Europe and skip London! And the reason I thought 3 days in Stratford is simply because I know it will take a day if not two to get over the jetlag, so I might as well try to figure that into the trip.

Cimbrone - like everyone else, I appreciate your advice. But, I have looked at a map, many in fact - and train schedules and plane schedules, etc.! Anywhere a train ride would be more than 5-6 hours (except for the Barcelona-Nice leg, which I have heard is a fantastic train ride from someone I trust), I found a plane on one of the many discount airlines. I guess I sat there thinking to myself, would I rather see, say, Madrid, or get to see a whole other country, and I chose seeing a whole other country. I don't really know why, I suppose - just trying to see as much of the different things Europe has to offer as possible.

The reason I moved Italy (I originally had it after Nice) to the end was because everything I read said do not go in August under any circumstances - moving it to the end and a short plane ride from Brussels would put it in September.

The problem is really that I'm dying to see it all, and that's why I'm struggling so much! I've already come to terms with all the places I want to see but can't - Scotland, Poland, Croatia, etc. I talked to friends who have been to various cities and thought about my own personality and made the decision to go for breadth over depth. And the cities I posted was only the main list. I was planning things like day trips to Sintra, Malmo, Cannes, etc., and some others that I've flagged but can't think of off the top of my head. So I've thought about it all, it's just jumbled in my head which again is why I posted here for advice.

Thanks again everyone!

OK, so I didn't realize you'd already "covered" London, but while I enjoy going to Stratford for the plays, there is not much happening there during the restoration of the theatres -- certainly not three days worth. And I can think of at least 1,487 other towns or cities in Europe that would provide a better three nights than Stratford -- especially since it is your ONLY destination in the UK.

And now when I look at things like "Belgium -- 3 nights" -- which cities, what do you hope to accomplish?

My basic suggestion is to forget "seeing it all" and concentrate on "experiencing some". Big difference.

Well you couldn't have known that I've already been to London. My fault!

As I said, I'm a Shakespeare junkie and it just seemed like it would be a more relaxing way to ease into the trip a bit (plus, it seemed impossible to not fly either into, out of, or through, London...). Figured I'd stay in a little B&B, take in a play - whatever was available - and just roam around and see the historical stuff and perhaps go to Warwick Castle. I saw a show on tv about Edinburgh and it looked simply STUNNING. I guess it seemed sort of out of the way. What cities would you suggest instead?

As for Belgium, I hadn't really gotten that far, to be honest. Everyone says don't miss Bruges and I have a friend near Brussels, but I hadn't planned it more specifically than that.

My head knows that seeing it all is impractical and probably not the smartest thing, but my heart is having a hard time letting me take any of these cities out (my very first list was much longer, believe it or not.). So it's not so much that I refuse to pare it down and instead spend longer in some places... I just really don't know what I'd cut.

thanks again :)

I don’t have the moral authority to criticize your planned itinerary, inasmuch as my first trip to Europe, many years ago, was also of six weeks duration and covered more cities than you are planning to do. 14 different overnight stops for a total of 32 nights, 5 overnight trains and 5 nights on a boat between Italy and Greece. Looking back, I’m stunned by the how shallow and superficial the journey was. But I enjoyed it immensely and I don’t think I would have been happy if I had done it on the scale suggested by the folks above.

What does bother me about your plan is this statement:

“I'm not one to care much about waiting in long lines and paying big fees to see the museums and touristy things - I'd rather stroll around cities and absorb the culture as opposed to hitting every main attraction.”

Unless you have some other idea in mind that I can’t fathom, going all the way to Florence, for example, then avoiding the great cultural attractions so you can wander around “absorbing” culture strikes me as perverse. Since you say you are not going out at night, all you are going to meet strolling around are fellow tourists and people providing services to tourists, a few who will be Florentines, but most won’t be.

I hope you change your mind about avoiding the reasons for visiting these great cities, and have a memorable vacation.

Ron, thanks for your input, especially nice to hear from someone who did a similar kind of trip!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that I would avoid all tourist attractions!!! My mom said something yesterday (when talking about a similar trip she took 36 years ago) to the effect of "Even though we're not Catholic, the Duomo is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. And you have to see the Davids - all of them!"

I guess I meant more like.... I wouldn't want to wait in line for 2 hours to see the Colosseum (which I've been told by many is a realistic expectation) when I could see it from the outside or an art museum (I'm really not much of a fan of art) if I could walk around the Campo de Fiori or sit on a bench, eat some pizza and a gelato, and people-watch instead. My favorite thing about London (besides the 4 palaces we visited!) was just walking around and seeing the city.

I guess I meant more that I would see the things that I really wanted to see (I would wait all day to see the Anne Frank House) and skip other things that, while they may be fantastic, don't fit in with my particular interests.

The thought of paying 20 bucks and waiting in line for 3 hours just to go to a museum because everyone says it's great even if I wouldn't be interested it in it all also seems perverse, but I understand what you mean and will most certainly keep it in mind!

Debstah,

I didn't miss the part about August being the only time you can go. What I was saying is that since August is your fate, don't make yourself miserable by going to the hottest places in Europe. If you're not superhuman, you're not going to enjoy walking around Italy in August.

Stubborn has nothing to do with it. You need time to do a laundry. You need time to rest. You need time to catch up with your mail and organize you next week's activities. You need time to buy tickets and wait for trains that are late. You will get lost. You will want to make friends. By trying to cover so much distance, and being on the go every 3rd day, you are losing time in your destinations.

I agree with the sentiment that if you really aren't interested in the cultural treasures, it makes no sense for you to be spending the kind of money you will be spending on hotel and restaurant bills in major European capitals, or some high-end tourist destination like Venice.

You can get by with English only in many wonderful but less-travelled places. Instead of Nice, Marseille. Instead of Venice, Verona. Instead of Brussels, Antwerp. Instead of Amsterdam, Haarlem. Instead of Copenhagen, Elsinore.

By the way, what were your favorite things about London? It might tell you how to approach this trip.

ah, okay, sorry, I misunderstood!

Heat's not so much an issue for me, I have lived in Houston in the summer, been in Phoenix at temperatures of over 100, etc. More importantly, I think I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I took a trip to Europe and skipped Italy.

I guess the reason I stuck to the big cities was because of the ease of travel. The thought of going overseas for that extent of time is nerve-wracking enough but the thought of "get off the airport, take a train to the train station, walk 200 meters to my hotel, subway is just down the street" kind of thing made me feel a bit more secure. I figured it would be easier to base myself in bigger cities and then do day trips.

As for London, as I said, I loved all of the castles - we did the Tower of London, Windsor, Hampton Court, and we were lucky enough to be there when Buckingham Palace was open. I also just had a ball watching the changing of the guard and we took a little boat ride around the Thames that was a great "tour" of the city. I also loved St. Paul's Cathedral and the tour of the WWII underground rooms. And I've never laughed harder than the performance in the amazing little theatre of The Complete Works of Shakespeare in 90 Minutes. I also just enjoyed exploring Trafalgar Square and Covent Gardens and the night shopping on Oxford Street. Where it comes to the tourist attractions, my interests would definitely gear towards the historical or architecture rather than, say, art.

You guys have convinced me that I should cut 3 cities or so - still a lot, but would allow 4-5 nights in each place. So I will sleep on it and think about what I can bear to give up.

I really do appreciate all the advice and opinions you've given.

Are you sure you don't mind spending every 4th (or 5th) day travelling? If not, go for it.

On our 11 week trip this summer (family with kids aged 11 and 13), we travelled about once every week, sometimes twice in a week. By the end, while I didn't mind the travel so much, the packing and unpacking really got to me.

Another thing is that we enjoyed some time in the country (Tuscany) or smaller cities (Kyoto, Japan or Salamanca, Spain) or a beach location (Santorini), as they broke up the big-city stimulation. While I LOVE big cities, sometimes a change of pace is nice and the smaller places give you a great feel for the people and culture of a country.

It was so-o-o hard to narrow down our list of places. With 11 weeks, we thought we'd have time to go to so many places we wanted to see. But, when we started mapping it out, we were only able to hit a few of the major places (Tokyo and Kyoto, Beijing and Xian and Shanghai, Santorini and Athens, London, Amsterdam, Madrid and Salamanca, Stockholm, Rome and Tuscany, and Prague. We wanted to see Australia, Thailand, Singapore, Croatia, Portugal and some others, but couldn't manage it all.)

By the way, I hate to add places to your list, but... what about Greece? The Greek Islands are so-o-o beautiful.

One tip: If you want to visit the Coliseum in Rome, buy your ticket at the Palatine Hill (10 minutes away on foot) and you can wait in line 20 minutes instead of 2 hours. The ticket is good for both attractions.

I hope you have fun planning. It is so enjoyable to look ahead and thing of all the fun you are going to have.

Another alternative is to capitalize on the (usually) excellent regional train/transit systems and stay in some small towns that are easily commutable from the center cities. For example, Sitges near Barcelona is a fun beach town 30 min from the middle of the city. Accomodation is much cheaper than in central BCN, it's perfectly safe (large gay community, also a fine annual film festival) but would allow you to see two aspects of the Barcelona region for the price of one.

Similar places can be found outside other major cities. You don't have to do this exclusively, but it can be a nice low-key alternative to (often) drab hotels close to train stations or subway stations in the big cities.

I do think you're seriously underestimating the time/hassle factor. Going from Prague to Stockholm is a long, long day on the train; Lisbon to Barcelona is more than a day, and so on. If you're reducing the number of cities on this death march, try eliminating the seriously peripheral ones, especially if they're not well served by low cost air carriers. Lisbon is one such, as are Rome and Stockholm. Keep it compact, or plan on eating an awful lot of cr@p train food.

It sounds like you've already given your trip a lot of thought, and worked through what YOU want to do, and what interests you. Keep it up!

I agree that cutting back on the number of cities will make for a more enjoyable trip. Keep in mind that for every 3-day stop, that could mean only 2 nights, depending on how you're counting things. That's not much time! For some of the cities, you're going to want a longer time there, so you can feel like you're getting to know the place. Also, a good rule of thumb to use is to assume that every change of location eats up 1/2 day (including packing up, checking in/out, transport to the airport or train station, the actual ride, etc.)

You've thought about city/country and your preference for cities. But also think about what you enjoyed about London. There are a lot of palaces that are outside of cities. For example, outside of Paris (I know, you're not going there, but it's an area I'm familiar with), you could spend 3 days (2 nights) visiting chateaux in the Loire Valley. You may find similar areas near the cities you're visiting that would add some variety to your trip.

Another factor to consider is the languages in the countries you'll be visiting. I like to know as many travel words and phrases as possible of countries I'm visiting, and that's much more difficult if there are multiple countries. Not everybody feels this way.

Something else you should try to do is to, as Rick Steves puts it, "take a vacation from your vacation." In six weeks, even enjoying fabulous European culture, food architecture can start to seem like work. So schedule some days when you don't do anything. Granted, that's probably easier in a rural location (I think Rick suggests beaches and places like that, but I'm not into beaches), but you could take a break from everything while in a city, as well. For example, on a Sunday, do whatever the people in the city you're in do on Sundays - usually it's some nice park that might not be on a tourist list, but definitely a way to relax the same way the locals do.

In terms of cutting down on your list, tell yourself that you WILL return - and you will! Also, go through guidebooks (as I'm sure you have already), especially using suggested itineraries for "top 10" things to do (not that you should only do that, but just to use to cut your list), and write down what sounds good to you. You can even use a star system. For example, based on what you've said interests you most, Rome has a lot to offer, because there's a lot of architecture and outside kinds of art. Florence, maybe, has less. Venice is, IMHO, a great place for wandering around. In each of our visits there, we go to a couple of "important" museumy things, and spend most of our time just wandering.

I can't really give advice on the heat thing, except that unlike the U.S., many places don't have ac; for the last 10 years, we've been able to travel to Europe in May or September/October and avoid the heat. I made a similar trip to yours quite some time ago, after I finished grad school. I traveled in Austria, Switzerland and France for a month, both cities and rural areas (rented a car). For the first half, it was me and my mom. For the last half, she went home, and my husband joined me. It was a great experience!

Another suggestion, now that I think about my trip. The only thing I did get tired of was waiting for meals. Almost every meal (and most were not formal or expensive) meant waiting for a waiter, ordering food, waiting for it, etc. We probably had quite a few picnic lunches in Austria and Switzerland, but probably could have used more of those. Also, in your case, if you do all your travel by public transport, you may get tired of traveling by bus/rail/whatever. Consider whether renting a car for several days might fit in your schedule and give you some variety, and provide a different sort of freedom.

Have a wonderful trip, and a great time planning (that's half the fun)!

Take a big old ax to that huge, huge list and really do some serious chopping!

Yeah, you could do it, but why turn it all into a blur and inflict such stress on yourself? As it stands now, you have a logistics nightmare in the works, and huge planning project ahead of you.

You are young and will be back. Simple and slow is the way to go.

And if you can stand just a bit more advice...for me it's less about cutting cities and more about replacing them with others. I really can't see flying over Cordoba, Seville, Avila, Salamanca, and Toledo when you're already in the "neighborhood" in order to get to Vienna, Prague, and Stockholm. Why shlep to Prague to see something amazing when you're a short train ride from Rome to the Amalfi Coast and from Florence to Lake Como? See my point? Have you done adequate research on all there is to see in each of these countries?

I am fairly new here, too- but just had to chime in about the heat. Since my schedule is dictated by the school year as well, it is always annoying to read that someone would never dream of going somewhere in July and August. The flip side is that if budget allows, I can go for five to six weeks, like you. I had the best times ever in southern Italy and also Greece, in August. Yes, it was sometimes hot. And crowded. But attitude is everything, and yours sounds wonderful. I have found the Lonely Planet guidebooks very useful. Rick Steves has some excellent information about RailPasses (or not) and a great chart to help you plan what makes sense or not when connecting your chosen dots. Some people like to sleep on the train, and so not "waste" a day. I would also suggest using a tour company on occasion to get out into the countryside for a day- they are always available though the TIs and you wouldn't have to make the arrangements yourself. For example, from Florence, you could spend a day touring a couple hill towns that way. Have a fabulous trip- nobody but you can know what your interests and priorities are!

First of all, once having been anywhere in Europe, there is no question that you will return, over and over again.

Second, a trip of just a week or two can consume enormous planning ahead endeavors.

Third, it is way better to visit any desination during the nicer weather, even though it costs a bit more. Trecking all about when it's REALLY HOT, and CROWDED everywhere, is no "present" to yourself.

Though you may believe you need/want to do it all right now, and avoid lines and "touristy" things, a one, two, three week trip will convince you otherwise.

Your proposed itinerary is not only daunting (and exhausting), but chock full of potential contingenies.

And, the very best way to enjoy any destination is to get up early and stay out late.

So, if you want to sleep late and go to bed early, pick one or two countries/desinations.

Congrats on getting your degree. I encourage you to go to Lyon, France and Annecy, France. I am a 21 yr old, female, college student. I have been to Europe twice in the past two years, staying in France for 6 weeks for study abroad and then two weeks travelling. I totally understand your mentality. I am not a very patient person, and I don't wait in long lines myself just to go to a boring museum. I prefer to go to smaller cities that aren't as touristy and soak up local life. Lyon is a beautiful city with great food and a great young nighlife. I met so many friendly people going out at night by myself there. Travelling by yourself is safe as long as you stay aware of your surroundings. Good luck!

Hi D,

>....I am worried about being a dead (wo)man walking halfway through the trip. I fear, though, that even if I swear to come back one day, I won't,...<
>The problem is really that I'm dying to see it all, and that's why I'm struggling so much! <

Sometime in the next 40 years you will go back. More than once, actually. :)

When I was much younger and posessed of somewhat more energy than wisdom, I did 10 cities in 4 weeks.

I can remember very little of the trip except for a small group gathered around me in some train station wondering whether I was drunk, stoned or sick.

Of course, I was simply exhausted.

>As a present to myself for finally finishing all of my education,...<

Dear colleague, you are finishing your training; you are just starting your education. :)

((I))

One other thing from my perspective...I wouldn't worry too much about the heat. I've been to Italy in July, and yes, it was very hot. But nothing that'll ruin your trip. (I'm from Florida, so I know from heat.) I can't see that Italy in September is going to be all that different from Italy in August. Certainly not worth rearranging the itinerary for.

Debstah,

Reading about what you liked to do London gives me the impression that what you really like is historic buildings, historic atmosphere and being surrounded by the unique traditions of a country.

You still need to focus on fewer places, but I would recommend that you stick to cities with well-preserved and very impressive historic cores.

If you can survive Houston, you can survive anything so here are some thoughts:

Week 1: Fly to London, hop a plane to Barcelona. Take a train to Marsellies. See Nice and hop a flight to Rome.

Week 2: Rome, Florence/Siena, Venice.

Week 3: Vienna and Prague.

Week 4: Antwerp/Bruges/Ghent/Amsterdam

Week 5: Amsterdam/Haarlem and Edinburgh.

Week 6: Stratford on Avon, then return return to London to go the Globe Theater a few times and fly home.

It's still too rushed and what I would cut is Nice/Marseilles, or Prague or all of them.

Just so everybody knows:

The temperature difference between August and September in Italy can be significant. In Liguria, there are fireworks festivals to celebrate the return of cool weather. (Recco) Plus, August is a fixed holiday month for the French and Italians, who drop everything and rush to the seaside and the mountains. It can mean jampacked touristing on top of jampacked touristing, since the Americans are already there.

Frankly, despite all the negative input you've received, I think your trip sounds pretty great. You already know it will be hot in at least some of the places you are going - so what. Unless you melt easily it shouldn't be a problem. I've been to Europe every July (and one August) for quite a few years now and have not found the heat or the crowds anything that would make me not go. The fact that you have northern Europe as well as Southern Europe in your itinerary means you might well find some nice balanced weather.

Second, I don't think it's at all foolish to fly over some great places to get to others. You already know you can't hit everything, so picking Vienna over Madrid is not something foolish, as some have suggested. In fact, because intra European flights are as cheap and quick as they are, it can actually be faster to get to somewhere further away, than say taking a train to a city in a neighboring country. Last summer I went from Lisbon to Copenhagen and everyone kept asking me why I didn't go to Madrid instead of Scandinavia. Well, I wanted the variety, and it was less time and money to fly to Copenhagen from Lisbon than it was to take a train to Madrid from Lisbon. So don't worry about you're hopping around. But do realize that even by plane, once you add in all the getting to and from airports to city centers, waiting on security lines at the airport, etc., it will eat up most of a day. And those travel days are the most tiring. That's why people are trying to talk you into less "destinations". But I think taking out maybe just a couple would make your itinerary quite nice.

Third, I totally agree with you about soaking up atmosphere versus "doing" all the big museums. (But you and I are in the minority here, so expect people to not understand the thinking). Obviously it doesn't mean you go to Florence and don't see the duomo, etc. It just means it's ok to pick and choose which museums and major sites you want to spend time and money on and not do just the three star attractions. Soaking up the atmosphere (and in my case, taking photos) IS a very wonderful pursuit when traveling. I've never regretted not seeing every museum on my first trip to any specific place.

The one change I would make would be to skip Straford, in fact if you don't want to go to London, skip England completely. I absolutely love England, and at first I was going to suggest doing some other small towns, but you are moving about alot, even for six weeks, so cutting down some is a good idea. Stratford for a Shakespear lover will just be a huge dissapointment, especially in the summer. Just too crowded, touristy, etc. Really, just think about forgetting it for this trip. If you are doing a couple of weeks in England, stopping by for one day makes sense, but not a whole seperate destination.

If you could find one other place to delete you'd have another day in each of your remaining destinations, which you could use to day trip to small towns, etc. I definitly advise you do at least some of that in any case.

You probably will go back to Europe, but you know what your plans are and if you don't think another trip is likely in the forseeable future, you should do what you want and get a nice "taste" of Europe. I think what you have planned, with minor adjustments, will do just that. Have a great time.

Debstah,

I have been to most of your target desinations, and written subjectively about many of them. I suspect that your perspective may resemble mine a bit -- some of the high culture is fine, but the ordinary life of the city is interesting and should be appreciated. Perhaps my website would enable you to get a handle on some of the cities on your list. You need to copy and paste the url because the software management of this site does not seem to like the ~ character: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On your itinerary: it's a lot, but I presume that you are young and energetic. Personally, I think it a loss to visit central Europe and not include Budapest, one of my favourite cities and, I think, one of the more accommodating places for solo travellers. But I don't know how you might make the time! Were it me, I would cut Copenhagen time to get Budapest (such an adjustment would be very good for your budget also).

In Sept 2002 we did. Flight to Amsterdam 3 nights train to Paris for 4 nights. Flight to Rome 4 nights train to Florence for 3 nights. Flight to Prague 3 nights train to Berlin 3 nights. Flight to Munich for 3 nights. Flight to London 3 nights then home to Denver. 26 nights in 8 cities plus 9 airports, 3 train stations, shuttle buses, taxis, 8 Hotels to check in and out of.
We were both 29 at the time and we had fun but it was too much! We did see the cities' tourist sights (kinda)
but there was too much to see and very little time to do it in. We lost a day each time we traveled betwen cities. I.E getting to and from the train/airport to our hotels, travel time, packing then unpacking, doing laundry.

After Florence we were just plain pooped!

To tell you the truth. I was never so happy to get home from a vacation then that one and it tooks us 5 days at home to got back to just rested!

Since then we have been back to Paris and Nice (2003) for 11 nights 8 in Paris 3 in Nice.

Munich and Salzburg 10 nights 7 in Munich 3 in Salzburg (Sept 2004) For Oktoberfest.

Amsterdam and London (2005) for 10 nights London 6 nights Amsterdam 4 nights.

In April 2007 we're going to Rome for a week.

We had to revisit all those cities because most of our memories of our first vacation are of getting to an from our Hotels. If not for the pictures my husband took I woundn't believe we were there.

Do yourself a favor and cut some of those cities out of your itinerary. The travel time alone saved will give you more time to relax and really get a feel on those worderful places.

OK, now I'm going to post something that seems totally contrary to what I posted above -- but it really isn't.
Here's the itinerary for our first big trip to Europe. My partner and I were over 45 at the time. We traveled mostly by train (3 month Eurail passes) from June 26 to October 2 or a total of 98 nights. We loved it:

5 nights Stockholm
1 night Turku, Finland (after a boat from Stockholm)
3 nights Helsinki
5 nights driving northern Finland with 4 separate overnight stops
bus to Karasjok, Norway and overnight in a "Lapland" village
bus to Kirkenes, Norway and overnight
Coastal Steamer 3 nights around northern Norway to Bodo -- one night Bodo
2 nights Trondheim, Norway
6 days driving the fjords with 4 separate hotels in 6 nights
3 nights Bergen
4 nights Oslo
2 nights Gothenburg, Sweden
3 nights Copenhagen
2 nights Odense
1 night Bremen, Germany
7 nights Amsterdam
3 nights Brugge
2 nights Luxembourg
2 nights Strausbourg
6 days driving the "Romantic Road" with 4 separate stops
3 days along the Rhine and Mosel by KD boat with separate nights in Rudesheim, Koblenz, and Cochem
2 nights Koln
2 nights Nurenberg
3 nights Prague
5 nights Vienna
3 nights Budapest
3 nights Salzburg
2 nights Innsbruck
4 nights Munich
2 nights Meersburg
1 nights Stein am Rhine
2 nights Lugano
1 night Locarno
2 nights Zermatt
2 nights Geneva
5 nights Paris

So to those who say "too much", I say if it appeals, do it. You're much younger than we were. I'm not sure if I'd change much of anything we did on that trip if I had to do it all over again. We've done many trips since where we could "stay put" and dig into things and of course, we've been back to many of those places we got a taste of on that trip. We purposely avoided doing Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even France (except Paris) knowing we'd want to do those all later. But do notice that there were a couple of longer stops along the way. That week in Amsterdam was really nice, although we were on the go a lot doing daytrips. Meanwhile to those who say that there is no relaxing time -- they are wrong. To me there is nothing more relaxing than riding a train for 4 or 5 hours between destinations. In fact we seemed more "on the go" during that 7 days in Amsterdam than when we stayed 2 nights one place then half a day relaxing getting to another place for 2 or 3 nights.

And we did do a nice combination of major cities (which we also like the most) and visiting smaller towns and countryside -- either on day trips or during our several driving segments.

I'd also caution against taking that "we don't want to do the touristy things" attitude. Most famous touristy things are famous for a reason -- they are sooooo worth it.

Hello Debstah.

What I think you need here is a theme, something to make your trip hang together.

You're a Shakespeare junkie. You've got Rome (Julius Caesar) on the list, and Venice (The Merchant of...) but you're leaving out Verona (Romeo and Juliet, Two Gentlemen of....).

Verona just also happens to be nicely positioned for a lovely, and scenic, train ride over the alps. Yes, I hear you about the discount airlines, but while you might like cities, surely you don't like airports. Plus, others will dispute me on this, but discount airlines are not infallible.

You're a literary buff, and you're going to not so much as sneak a peek at the land of the Brothers Grimm (Germany) on your way to (from) Amsterdam/Belgium?

I'm glad budget is not an issue, because it sure helps for it not to be once you hit Scandinavia. (Pssst. Hamlet's father wasn't murdered, he croaked at the sight of the prices in Copenhagen....)

Basically, I see no problem in seeing a lot of places, especially if you're young and up to the rigours. But as nessundorma points out, make time to do the laundry (and remember, playwrights and writers write about ordinary joes and janes, not just the princes. A laundromat is a great place to meet them, as are trains.)

Bon voyage. May flights of angels sing thee thy improved itinerary...

Hey Sue: Who's that extra guy from Verona? It's 2 gentleman.

(Perhaps you were thinking of those 3 kings from orient are.;-) )

Adding to the Shakepeare theme, one could go to Sicily (A Winter's Tale, Much Ado About Nothing), Scotland (MacBeth), Agincourt (Henry V), Cyprus (Othello), we've covered Elsinore and I guess we could toss in Windsor (for the Merry Wives), Athens (for Timon), Tyre in Lebanon (Pericles), Padova (Taming of the Shrew) and is Ardennes (in Belgium) the location of the forest of Arden in As You Like It? No doubt there are more -- but don't forget that Shakespeare never traveled, as far as I know, outside of England.

LOL, Sue.

"Hamlet's father wasn't murdered, he croaked at the sight of the prices in Copenhagen....)"

A very important but little known fact that somehow escaped the history books.

TWO Gentlemen of Verona. Yes. Does someone need Santa to bring glasses for Christmas?

Ooops. Didn't realize to whom I was addressing that last remark, didn't even look at the poster name. Before I'm stalked and attacked once again for my "rudeness"-- that glasses comment was meant to be a joke.

I agree.. i hate having a preset plan when really i just want to explore a city. Still despite my initial objection to tours i had heard good things about contiki travel. The advice to book with this company was right on. Our tour manager gave us an initial idea of what sites to pursue in a city and then he just let us loose for the day . It was awsome!!! I love freedom but i also like to know what to do and that I am going to get home that day.

WOW, thanks all for so much valuable insight and advice! My head is full of new ideas and possibilities now!

travelgirl2 - no I don't think I'd mind the traveling every 4 days or so. Every 2 days, probably. I thought about Greece (and many other places I'd love to go, but believe it or not that list I posted in my first post was what I felt I could pare it down to!!). Thanks for the tip on the Coliseum! And yes, the planning has actually been a lot of fun, I like doing the hotel research and putting it together like a puzzle.

Gardyloo - I didn't underestimate the time factor - I was planning to fly from Lisbon to Barcelona (found a low-cost airline), same for Prague to Stockholm. If I couldn't find a train ride under 6 hours or a non-stop flight, I took one of the cities out or reconsidered.

Lexma - thanks! I really did give it a lot of thought. I thought about my interests, what other people have told me were their favorite places, what would be feasible in terms of travel by flight/train, etc. The #s I posted above were for actual nights - not days. I'm not really into beaches either, but I understand what you mean about downtime, I'm definitely realizing that my trip as I was considering it would only really include that while I'm on trains and planes and each evening. I definitely thought about renting a car and if I do cut cities out and leave more time for travels outside the city, that may definitely be a viable option here and there, even if maybe for only a day or two at a time. Thanks!

Cimbrone - I really did do research I promise! I guess I just decided to get a taste of more places, I just chose breadth over depth. I originally had Milan and Como on my list, but that was one that I took off.

sglass - thanks for the tip on Rick Steves, I will certainly check it out! I have the Lonely Planet Europe on a Shoestring book and it was pretty helpful, I read through all the sections for the cities I'd been considering and got lots of good ideas.

djkbooks - I hope you are right about going back many times. I don't like living with regrets and I'm just so afraid if I skip, say, Prague or Vienna or Stockholm, I'd regret it. As for the hot and crowded, I've just accepted it.

butrflimobrain - thanks for the advice on safety - and I guess that's one of the reasons I say I wouldn't stay out too late. I've lived and worked in many of the US's biggest and most dangerous cities and I've always been quite careful, so I am not too terribly worried about that. Of course, I would want to avoid putting myself in particularly dangerous situations, which is why I would do a lot of research before booking hotels and whatnot.

nessundorma - yes, I think you've pegged me exactly right. My impressions from London were just, WOW this is old! I grew up near Boston, in some of America's oldest parts, but nothing like what I saw in London. I was just in awe and i liked soaking it in (and because I was on a group trip, I didn't have much opportunity to be able to do that). I like your proposed itinerary a lot, I will definitely give some thought to it! I also really like the idea of instead of going to Stratford, see other "Shakespeare-y" type things - I will definitely have to consider that - or at least adding some of those things into the plan somehow!

isabel - I can't thank you enough! I guess I just figured, flying from LA (and I really prefer flying nonstop) would be easier to fly through London, so I figured I should see Stratford. I suppose I could always just change planes in London and just start in Lisbon and cut out one or two other cities and it'd probably be a lot more manageable but still allow me to see a lot of things. I love taking photos too! It's how I remember things; I saw London really in-depth several years ago and only really clearly remember what's in my photos too. I appreciate that you understood what I was trying to say about attractions versus atmosphere. I wasn't sure I was getting across what I really meant. And I see what you mean about Stratford perhaps being a disappointment - my mom was a huge elvis fan and when we drove through Memphis a few years ago, we went past Graceland, and I thought she was going to cry. So I should seriously consider skipping Stratford

Padraig - thank you, I will read your website soon! Others have said the same thing to me about Budapest (especially since some of my family lineage is the old Austria-Hungarian). My parents visited Copenhagen before they were married and they say it was their favorite place in all of Europe - that's why I'd be so reluctant to give it up. So I need to think about it some more!

NeoPatrick - thanks for sharing your experience, I admit I got a little tired reading it! As for the train rides - it sounds very relaxing to me. One summer I worked in downtown Boston and those 25 minutes each way on the train were my most relaxing of the day - I loved it. So I think I am the type who would love the train rides and find it very relaxing.

athornberry - I am just one of those people that needs to know what i'm doing all the time, every day. I plan meticulously, so I would plan this trip accordingly - that's just the way I am!

Wow, I have a lot to think about and really appreciate all of your experiences and opinions and insights! I'm off to do some more research and to think about what I can cut out. thanks again everyone!

This thread seems incomplete without my putting in my usual two cents about the length of the trip being too long. I recommend no more than 16-22 days total on a first trip to Europe. And repeat, every 6-36 months, as your time and finances allow.

You'll see, how yout accumulated Europe travel savvy changes what experiences you have, what plans you make, for each subsequent trip.

Best wishes,

Rex

rex wrote: "This thread seems incomplete without my putting in my usual two cents about the length of the trip being too long. I recommend no more than 16-22 days total on a first trip to Europe. And repeat, every 6-36 months, as your time and finances allow."

That obviously suits your circumstances and your temperament, and would suit some other people. But there is no universal rule that works for everybody.

My circumstance is that I live in Ireland. I make about four trips a year to continental Europe, usually city breaks, and most of my trips are between three and seven days' duration. I find it difficult to arrange a longer break. I dream of being able to make a trip of eight to twelve weeks; that would make me very happy.

To each his or her own. I guess, and hope, that Debstah knows what would suit her. If she is wrong, she will have learned something, hopefully at not too great a cost in money or happiness.

Put me on the list that is totally not into Rex's idea of keeping the European trips short. When a big part of the cost of the trip can be getting there and getting back, many of us prefer making our travel dollars go a heck of a lot further by staying there longer when we do go.

Frankly, we have gone for up to 5 months at a time, more often two to three months. Rex would hate that. But we love it, and are never ready to come back when we finally have to. I have no idea why anyone would suggest we cut our trips to two or three weeks! I do realize Rex said "on a first trip to Europe", but this is not Debstah's first trip to Europe so I'm not sure why we're suggesting that anyway.

Many people often suggest that a month or so trip should be spent concentrating on one country. With the days of cheap and quick plane trips, I really see no reason for that, either. It's interesting because if a European posted saying they were going to make a trip to the US and were going to spend their full 6 weeks in one state, everyone would normally jump all over them. Many of us with a little extra time to spend like to make more out of holiday by experiencing a wider range of different "cultures" and "scenery" than concentrating on just one.

I am one that always disagrees with Rex that the first trip to Europe should be a short trip.

First of all there is probably some jetlag. And than there is getting adjusted to being in Europe etc.

Now I am sure a lot of people would cringe, but the first time we went to Europe it was for two months. We thought we would go to several countries but as it turned out we spent the entire two months in Italy including ten days on Capri. A vacation within a vacation. We left our rental car in Naples..my husband enjoyed ten days of not driving. We found that we loved Italy so much and we had so many places to go to, people to see it was perfect for us. Obviously not a decision a lot of travellers would make.

Anyway Debstah, my stepgrandsons have done European trips similar as to what you are thinking of and loved every moment, even when they were tired and stressed.

You have received a wealth of information. Now you should wade through it and figure out what works for you.

I do agree a good part of a day is lost changing locations. Train travel can be very relaxing, at least for me it is. You will return to Europe inspite of the fact you will be working. Working means having money to return to Europe.

Best wishes to you with your decisions. And don't forget to give us a trip report!