Go there and spend at least a week to ten days.

I know it's your first time to Europe. I know airfare is expensive and you want to get the best bang for your buck. Going to 3-5 countries in 2 weeks or 2 countries in less than one week is not the way.

Believe me, I'm a cheapskate. Get the best vacation deal by enjoying the country you land in. If you have time cross a border and enjoy another place.
Okay I've said it. Carry on.

Portugal

Lsky, I read your post last night while watching Sherlock Holmes, thought you were throwing out clues, hahaha.

With the GREATES possible amount of respect for your views, I do wish you would remember that not everybody travels the same way, wants to see/do all the same things, etc.; What is an absolute must for someone is also and absolute "cannot be less interested" for somebody else.

I really wish that everybody had the time and money to travel slowly and that they were absolutely assured, as so many people here seem to be, that they WERE going to be able to go back.

Unfortunately, and sadly, that is not always the case.

Cheers and have the best possible day today.

That is one way to have an enjoyable vacation. There are many other ways.

I generally agree with LSky unless it's contiguous areas that happen to be in different countries (i.e., Lombardy and Ticino) or cities with quick transport connections that also happen to be in different countries (i.e., London and Paris).

The "we may never get back" argument could apply to every trip ever taken by anyone, and the opposite of the argument is also valid. If you have no guarantee you'll ever see Paris again, would you spend only a day and a half there because you really want to see Rome and Barcelona in the same one week trip?

While I could care less if someone does Europe in 5 days or stays 2 weeks in Tuscany, I find the financial argument the least convincing. Hopping around Europe will incur so many extra costs that I wonder if those who think they can never afford to go back again have ever calculated a trip to just one location for a full week to compare costs.

First of all, you steal yourself a good chunk of your vacation time going to and from airports and train stations and being stuck on planes or trains.
Then you can never take advantage of extended stay discounts at hotels, or get a decent weekly rate for an apartment.
When you can't stay at an apartment, you can never opt not to eat out and just pick up some meat or other foodstuff at the market, or beverages at less than convenience store prices.
Or visit sights and museums on days or at times when you get in for free.
Most is just 5 euros here and 10 euros there, but I am sure that it will add up eventually.

Well, as I said, I don't care how people travel. Just some itineraries I see here look so much more like work than leisure time. Especially to countries which are proverbial destinations of dolce far niente, slow-paced and so non-calvinistic lifestyles that the style people choose to visit these countries is an almost comical contrast.

It doesn't matter to me how other people travel either; I think it's interesting but I'm not attached.

It just seems like so many people ask for advice on how to see it all. Then they add that they're on a shoestring budget. It not only sounds exhausting, it’s expensive to do too much at once.

If one is traveling to a new country on a tight budget they have to consider so many things that others like Cowboy have explained.

Then there is also time spent on public transportation and on foot. That means add in the time spent getting lost, which brings us to learning enough words in a different language to ask an 85 year old woman who only speaks her language and is hard of hearing to boot how to get from Czxckey back to Prague. Times that by 3 different languages.

Jean makes an excellent point. "If you have no guarantee you'll ever see Paris again, would you spend only a day and a half there because you really want to see Rome and Barcelona in the same one week trip?"

Very often great memories are made because you took the time to enjoy the best beer you’ve ever tasted and new friends at the next table said, “you should go…” I’m not suggesting a snail’s pace but slowing down enough to build some real memories instead of having a stack of facebook photos with your face and the point of the Eiffel Tower sticking out in the background.

Besides, it was the best beer I’ve ever tasted and I’m glad I went to …


Unless you're scheduled to be hanged at dawn, there's always a chance that you can go back.

Like Dukey said everyone has their own style or preference for traveling. Some of us (like yourself) like to stop and smell the roses....sit at that cafe and sip the coffee... park it on a bench nearby and then smell the roses some more. That's cool! I know lots of people that prefer that method of travel including my wife. I personally like to cover LOTS of ground skimming the highlights of several areas as opposed to spending all that time in one place (or country in this instance)

For example I saw NYC, Philly, and Boston in 4 days and LOVED it. I chose to do that then dedicate all my time to one of those places. I knew that if i only picked one, it would have been NYC (again) and it could be a long time before i'd ever see the other two. Some of us just don't have the vacation time or the frequent opportunities to see new places. Different strokes for different folks

"Some of us (like yourself) like to stop and smell the roses....sit at that cafe and sip the coffee... park it on a bench nearby and then smell the roses some more."

Let's not assume please. I don't mind stopping for a beer but I get a lot done too. As I said, I'm not attached to how anyone else travels. You're right, 3 cities- 4 days isn't for me. Sometimes I need most of the day for a museum.

It's just that I read this forum and it seems most of the people who want to have one of those 15 country in 10 day experiences are new and want to save money.

Besides this is all for naught. New travelers aren't reading this thread

We have been traveling to Europe for many yrs now. In our younger yrs we could do one nighters and cover alot of miles in a day. Not anymore. We don't have the energy to run here and there. And, I actually prefer the slower way of travel. I think you do take away more from the experience.

But that's just me. I've done both and can understand both points of view.

<especially to countries which are proverbial destinations of dolce far niente, slow paced and so non-Calvinistic lifestyles that the style people choose to visit these countries is an almost comical contrast.>

I wouldn't say it's all for naught. Cowboy's comment above is very thought provoking. How can I whiz through Puglia in 5 days when the very thing I claim to love about it is the pastoral way of life that takes the whole area back to a slower time in history? Why do we have this drive to "see it all" while at the same time, yearning for a slower pace? It's a conundrum, a riddle I must come to terms with "before" I sell all and move to Italy.....

re: "That is one way to have an enjoyable vacation. There are many other ways."

I so agree.

I once spent about 5 months exploring just New Zealand (the whole country is only the size of Oregon, so I pretty much covered most of it. I saw it in depth, seeing virtually every town/city of any size and much of the countryside, including backpacking and kayaking remote areas, etc.) A couple of times I've dashed around Europe seeing multiple major cities in 4 or 5 countries in 2 or 3 weeks. Another time I spent a year living in Amsterdam and liked the area so much, I couldn't be bothered to venture farther afield very often. I loved each and every one of those experiences.

To tell the truth various dashing-around trips have been REALLY fun. I would actually encourage people to do the dashing around kind of travel if they think it would suit their purposes at the time. There is something so glorious about seeing a panorama of differences in culture and geography in a short amount of time. It somehow brings the infinite variety of the world home in a way that is very satisfying to me. It's like the times I've done quick drives across the US in 5 days, say - moving through the Pacific coast, the southwest deserts, Texas cattle ranches, the Louisiana bayous, Mississippi plantations, and Florida beaches in quick succession is a totally different, and in some ways much more magical experience for me, than sitting in each of those places for a week or a month or a year at a time (some of which I've also done.)

I really wish I could articulate how wonderful that kind of panoramic travel is for me. If I was told I could only do one kind of travel henceforth, I would have no trouble making my choice - for me it would be a greater variety of experiences in a shorter time. That's why I travel in the first place - if the thing I valued most in life was really getting to know a place, why would I even leave the place I was born? One lifetime isn't enough to truly "know" and experience all there is to experience in even one city.

Besides how long in one place is long enough? After living a year in a place which was not my home country, the difference between someone spending three days there and three weeks there seems pretty insignificant. And arbitrary. And I'm sure to someone who has spent a decade there, or a lifetime, a year seems paltry. And what exactly constitutes "one place"? Should I spend all my allotted two weeks or whatever in one neighborhood? One town? One region? One country? One continent? One planet?

My point is that even for just one person (moi), one kind of travel does not suit all moods and purposes.

Well said, Nor

There is this somewhat funny travel book by that British author Alain de Botton.. I think it's "The Art of Travel"..
One theory of him I found somewhat intriguing, which is that our brain is always in a "what's next?" mode. And therefore has a hard time to cherish what we have or in the case of travels where we are. As our brain tells us that there must be an even more stunning vista down the road or an even more awe-inspiring cathedral in the next town.

By the way, I love road trips.
And the one NorCal mentioned across the US sounds to me almost like a Zen-like experience. But I would not even call that a rushed trip, as Nor never claimed that she was about to visit New Mexico just because she (or he? Sorry) was cruising west to east on I-10 or I-40 across the state. And I think that many more landscapes in North America than in Europe have these grand panoramic vistas that you can enjoy for hours from behind the wheel.

I still don't know where my next trip in 2 weeks will take me.. 3 weeks on the road between Calgary and.. well, Southwestern Colorado or Washington state. I haven't made up my mind yet

My DH wants to see as much as he can for the least amount of money and sleep is optional. Well, I am not like that. For a ten day trip, I would probably like to go to one country and see a city and some out lying areas. I find I am dead the first day and a half and so that is a wasted time because I will not enjoy the running around. We were in Paris for three days and Dh feels he saw Paris. I think I was the walking dead for a day and a half and then spent a day in Paris. I would like to go back someday.
DH travels as if he will never go back to that place he is going to. He is very ADHD in personality so he likes to go go go. I am pretty good about going in cities, but like to relax on a beach vacation.
Getting back to Europe. I hate to travel across the pond to rush through a short trip from place to place. I would rather take one country and see it staying in both city areas and some country areas.

NorCalif: that makes alot of sense. dashing around or panoramic travel as you put it is FUN but it's quite a contrast to smelling the roses. I realized that my 10 day honeymoon in Costa Rica was SUPER relaxing as i wasn't darting across the world. That doesn't sound like my MO when it comes to travel but it illustrates your point that some of us have different travel patterns.

I love variety which might explain my obsession with buffets and multi city trips. A benefit of the latter on a first big trip is the ability to sample an area for a longer future visit. You can also weed out places you didn't love. ex: I'll be back to Paris one day. Brussels? probably not unless it's using it as a base for other Flemish cities.