Eloise

AP6380: There are some pompous people on this board; I should know, as I've been accused of it myself.

At present, I also only manage three weeks in Europe a year. Back in my palmy student days several centuries ago, I was able to stay in Europe for three months at a time. During that period, I visited a great many European countries, some of them briefly, some of them for weeks at a time. With very few exceptions, I found my experience of the cities and countries I visited a full and satisfying one.

As my available time shrank and I had to make hard choices, I decided to concentrate my energies on the country that I love most. That country is Italy: for its people, for its cultural richness, for its natural beauty, for its food and wine. And after some 30 trips to Italy, I am still finding new things to discover there; even in Rome, where I always spent and continue to spend at least a few days.

Now I also tend to spend most of my three weeks in one region of Italy, because that is what I find most satisfying, not because I am looking for a quality (in CAPs) experience.

If Italy pulls you back again, go to Italy. There is no obligation to give "equal time" to the other countries in Europe. And if your experience is anything like mine, you will find each visit to Italy rewarding.

Patrick

I'm curious how many of the people who are sure that spending a couple weeks in one place is a more "quality" trip than one where someone hits maybe four places for three or four days each, have ever done the other. Or are they just assuming?

I'm willing to argue that my four days in Vienna, three in Budapest, and four in Prague were every bit as much a "quality" trip as the part where I was two weeks in Paris or the part where I was two weeks in the Dordogne, for example. All were wonderful, but I don't think hitting highlights of some outstanding places should be regarded as not being a "quality" trip! In fact I think I got more "quality" experiences out of the three city section than the section where I stayed in one place!

Nor do I think spending four nights each in Rome, Venice, and Florence are necessarily any better or of a better "quality" than spending four nights each in Amsterdam, Madrid, and Dubrovnik. They are just two different ways to travel. Some want to concentrate on one type of experience or a couple of closely related ones, and others like a wider variety for comparison. What's wrong with either?

Kavey

Patrick
I have done both.
I grew up travelling as my parents love it. Their preference is for tours (sometimes self driving and sometimes in an organised group) that take in numerous destination over a 2 or 3 week period.
I enjoyed each and every trip and saw wonderful things but definitely prefer a slower paced style which lets me see just one or two places on a trip.

Nikki

I see the issue as being more a choice between breadth and depth. Do you want to visit a wide range of places to compare and contrast the experiences, or do you prefer to get to know one place more in depth? Of course it is ideal if you can do both, but most people don't have that luxury of time.

I love France, and if it were up to me I would make France part of every vacation. But out of deference to my family, my last three trips have not included France, and I am longing to go back and be surrounded by the French language again. It was great to see London, Venice, Rome, and Copenhagen, but I am really really looking forward to the week my husband and I will spend in Paris in February, our first vacation together as empty nesters in celebration of our 25th anniversary.

Sue_xx_yy

I love the sense of time and space we get from moving around. I love having the chance to observe geographical contrasts. For example, this past trip I much enjoyed comparing the flat marshlands of Venice to the alps of the Austrian Tirol, and these in turn to the riverside scenery as we approached Vienna.

Besides, while I realize there are practical limitations to how much territory can be comfortably explored within a single trip or even within a single lifetime, I nonetheless feel that I can't know a place until I know what it isn't, or in other words, how it compares with other regions.

rj007

Patrick

I agree with you. Every one of my trips has been a quality experience whether it was 2 weeks in London or 4 countries in 3 weeks. If I didn't enjoy my trips it would be pointless to travel. Fortunately, that is not the case. I hear London calling!

amp322

I have been to Prague 8 times, and have spent the cumulative time of about 6 months there. It is my "second home", because I have made many friends there, and I really know my way around. I speak a little of the language, from just spending time there, and follow the current events of the Czech Republic. The city has changed quite a bit since I first visited, and I enjoy noticing the differences every time I return. I have made a concerted effort to visit other places around the world - Italy, the Netherlands, Eastern Europe, China, etc, etc. No other place has held my interest as much as Prague, and I expect/hope to return there at least once a year, as long as I am alive. It is great to take a trip around the world, but it is more satisfying to me to know a place in depth, and fall in love with its culture and people.