Debstah

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!

nessundorma

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.

Gardyloo

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.

Randy

Cut the number of cities in half.

NeoPatrick

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.

Cimbrone

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.

Debstah

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!

NeoPatrick

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.

Debstah

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

ron

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.

Debstah

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!

nessundorma

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.

Debstah

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.

travelgirl2

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.

Gardyloo

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.

Lexma90

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)!

degas

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.

Cimbrone

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?

sglass

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!

djkbooks

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.