Where to go
 

I am planning a vacation to Europe for my boyfriend and myself in May. I originally had planned to go to Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Rome, Venice, and Athens. I was going to spend a few days in each place over the course of 17 days. As I further into the planning process, I realize I would love to spend more time in each city. What cities should I prioritize? It will be our first time leaving the county and want to enjoy it all! Thanks in advance for help:)

You have plenty of time to plan. Read up on each place, watch travel shows on tv and youtube, and then come back here. We have no idea what you like or what your budget it. Without that we can't be much help.

6 days in paris, 6 in Rome 3 in venice ... and the extra days are travel days. May is perfect in those cities. With 6 days in Paris you could spare a day for a trip to Versailles or Fontainebleu. In 17 days, not used to Europe, don't take on more than 2 countries. Please.

PS: May in Paris has the "heure bleue" ... sunset is not until about 9:15, and the hour before it, when the weather's just right ... the air actually looks lavender blue. Unforgettable.

It is a tough question because all destinations are attractive and it will be a matter of personal taste which city you prefer over another. Here are a few thoughts:

- Paris is, with reason, everybody's favourite city in Europe. The cityscape with the grand Haussmann boulevards and monuments everywhere is very attractive, there are museums, cathedrals, cafés, parks, restaurants, a boat trip on the Seine, the grandiose castle in Versailles... you should spend at least 4 full days in Paris.

- Berlin is a city with many centres and different neighbourhoods. It is more vibrant and full of life than the other cities on your list. You find there also a grand boulevard lined with splendid historical buildings, cathedrals, world-class museums (there is nothing in the world that equals the Pergamon Museum with Babylon's Ishtar Gate!), boat trips on the river Spree, history, nightlife...

- Barcelona is not a capital city and has, admittedly, less to offer than the other destinations on your list. There a few buildings designed by art nouveau architect Gaudi (you either love him or hate him), a Miró museum, a cathedral and the Old Town. In my view, the destination on your list which is least attractive.

- Rome has mediterranean flair, the archeological sites and 2000-year-old buildings, the Vatican and its museum, the churches with Michelangelo statues, the catacombs etc. - with one word, much to offer. Also worth at least 4 full days.

- Venice is absolutely unique. Most European cities have their "Old Town" but Venice is nothing but a huge "Old Town", full of splendid historical buildings in a unique setting, along the canals. Also great masterpieces of art in the churches and the Scuola Grande. Since Venice is quite compact, two full days might be sufficient, but you might add another day without getting bored.

- Athens has the Acropolis, two ancient theatres, one of the best-preserved temples at all, the best archeological museums in the world and charming Old Towns with antique markets, little shops etc. Also, you can do daytrips to other archeological and medieval sites like Corinth and Akrocorinth and Mykene.

You see, very hard to choose from, although your basic idea not to do too many destinations is certainly right.

Maybe another aspect to consider: costs. Here are the cost levels (hotels, food&drink, entrance fees):

Paris: €€€€
Berlin: €€
Barcelona: €€
Rome: €€€€
Venice: €€€€
Athens: €

Paris, Como, Verona, Venice and Rome

By the way, Paris is not my favourite city. Rome is.

Kleeblatt,

You will cause a stir on here with that statement about Paris!

PS was out for a meal last night with some friends (in France). Mentioned I'd visited London, Rome and Paris in the last six months and,of those, preferred Paris.

Oops!

Having a Parisienne and an Italian in the company, you can imagine the ensuing conversation!

Which cities to choose is up to you, of course, but you have the right idea choosing there places rather than 6. Choosing just three places means you will have some time to explore and find what you like in each location. Do fly into your first city and out of the last so you don't have to backtrack.

If it was me - and it isn't - I'd choose Paris, Rome and Venice. Athens is a bit of an outlier and makes transport a bit more complicated - you would need to fly to Athens from one of the other cities.

You need guidebooks - they will help you figure out where you want to go. You local library likely has guidebooks for all of these places. As you decide which places you are most interested in, and see which guidebooks are most helpful, you can buy your own guidebooks for the places you want to go.

I'm going to suggest Athens, Venice and Berlin mainly because it would be such a startling mix of experiences of Europe. But you'd need to be interested in the history of each place, and the history of Europe.

If your primary interest is to have a great and trendy vacation with lots of entertainment, food and wine, shopping -- then I would say Paris, Barcelona and then either Rome or Venice. I'd only suggest Berlin to you if nightlife is very important to you -- and then I would say Paris, Barcelona, Berlin.

(And Paris is not my favorite city either. I've got several ahead of that, including Athens and Rome, and maybe even Berlin, and a few that aren't on your list.)

jtpj777:

Paris-

Ah yes, Americans seem to love it. Europeans less so although it's certainly a favourite for some.

Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Rome, Venice, and Athens.>

prioritize as to your interests of course but also from a utilitarian angle - how easy is it to go between them by train or plane?

I think putting Barcelona and Athens in the same trip means a couple of longer flights but Paris-Berlin-Venice-Rome could be done easily by train with overnight trains running between some of them - saving daytime travel time and the cost of a hotel or hostel.

Anyways for lots of great train info check www.seat61.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.ricksteves.com.

Like Paris to Berlin - you can leave Paris about 7 pm and wake up in Berlin next morning about 7 am - this involves a change of trains about 9 pm in Mannheim Germany to the ICN night train to Berlin.

Nab discounted fares at www.bahn.de/en or www.voyages-sncf.com.

http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/pr...t-travel.shtml

CNL not ICN train - night train in Germany - tells all about - private compartments can be very comfy.

You need to focus on the cities that really interest you and drop some of the others from your list. I also agree with a few of the posters to choose no more than three so you can really get a feel of those cities.

People always seem to forget that the same traffic jams, bad weather and plane delays we get in the US also happen in Europe. Do not make your trip too itinerary intense or you will be disappointed.

We have lived in Europe when in the US Army and have been back about 35 times in the last 25 years on road trips where we drive ourselves, boat cruises, etc. We have never done train travel as we felt it restricted our movement and cars were better to discover unique towns not on the tourist maps. The modern GPS systems are fantastic for this.

We have still never been to Barcelona and will correct that in 2016. I would skip Berlin for later. Athens and Greece should also be done on one trip....a cruise probably. Spend some quality time in Paris...at least one week. Even with that you will want to go back. Next up for me would be Venice and then a long time in Rome. You could even rent a car at end of time in Venice and drive through Florence on way to Rome. Tuscany is great.

If you hit those three cities and have quality time in each you will have a fantastic experience.....and will still say, "We need to get back to Paris".

Unlike others I would prefer not to recommend specific cities because they ALL have great attractions etc. so that is entirely your decision. I agree with the others however that you limit the number and spend more time in each.

I have done many modes of transportation depending on the vacation. I spent two months in Europe with my wife both this year and last. For your situation I strongly suggest that you consider the train between the cities of your choice depending on proximity to each other.

Take a look at my travel blog; it may help although my blog on some of the cities is in my archives.

Go to www.mytb.org/whirl-traveller

. We have never done train travel as we felt it restricted our movement and cars were better to discover unique towns not on the tourist maps.>

Yes cars are great for taking back roads thru countryside where trains don't venture and hitting totally non-touristed towns.

But if going to the mega tourist cities you have always dreamt about cars are more and more useless in such cities - have to pay a lot often to park them and for visiting the sights in a city like Paris just not practical and the metro is so so good, going everywhere.

So if just wanting to do big cities as many are naturally want to go eschew the car and take trains city center to city center - if wanting to explore more the countryside between big cities cars may be better.