I am in the early stages of planning a two month trip through Europe for me and a friend, and I am having difficulty deciding how to go about this trip. I have so far compiled two possible lists of cities and cannot decide whether I should look to travel to more cities in my two months or spend more time in less cities, the lists are as follows:
I have traveled through Europe a couple of times before and been to: London, Paris, Istanbul, Gallipoli, Ypres, Metz, Stratford-upon-avon and Trier, however my friend has never been abroad. So I am after some advice on which of my two trip plans sounds better or if neither of them are any good. All advice is welcome and much appreciated, thankyou.
In my opinion, you have too many stops in option 2. Considering it will in average take a half-day to travel from one city to the other, that represents 12.5 days of travel.
You can may be add a few stops to option 1: Amsterdam, Prague, Florence , Istambul ? And unless you intend to visit the bavarian castles, I would skip Munich.
I am particularly keen to see some parts of Munich so I doubt I will leave that off the list, but following your advice I may spend less time than originally planned there -as well as other cities- and see which other cities I can fit into the first option. Thankyou for your feedback.
I think that if you can visit more you should!
Once I wanted to go to Bath (UK) for just a day and someone told me that I should not because it is too nice of a city to only spend one day and that i should plan a separate trip to go there. i was quite happy to disregard this advise.
I went travelling from Leominster (not too far away from Birmingham) to Cardiff (4h travel by Train) where I spent 1 day and a half before going to Bath to spend 2 more days then I headed to London for 1 more day and proceeded to Paris. It was not such a long travel because I did not have much time off BUT 1 day in each city is actually quite enough to visit the city IF:
1. You are alone or with a friend who does not cry every half an hour because he wants to stop for lunch, go to the toilet, go to which ever shop, drink in a pub and so on... Because each stop with that kind of friend will take you at least 30 minutes and sometimes as much as 2 or 3 hours for a lunch in a restaurant. While alone you could have just eaten a sandwich on the road
2. You do not go inside every museum open. (You can stay one more day if you want to visit museums )
3. You program your visits in advance (at least check on the map, where is everything you want to see or ask the information desk)
4. You do not sleep until 1pm.
So really I would go with option 2 staying 2 or 3 nights in each place. In my opinion some cities like Oslo or Brussels are just not interesting enough to stay more. Like in Oslo I stayed 2 days and in one afternoon I've already seen the whole city: most of things are concentrated on one street... The next day I went to a Norwegian Folk Museum. It is quite nice, you can see reconstructions of different houses and stuff throughout the history. In Brussels the city centre is nice but really small. The nice things in winter are the Christmas market and Europe Miniature.
Hope this helps you out
Hi, some countries and regions missing from your list try adding at list 1 Romania ( Transilvania is absolutely to visit -not talking only about Bran Castle, you can also see the Merry Cemetery from Sapanta and all the area of Maramures that is very beautiful in this time of the year) anyway have a nice time visiting Europe
Thankyou for your advice, I will look into these cities.
Option 1 I like because it gives you time to see a bit of the city & also areas close by. Taking days trips out & back.
Option 2 I also like because I will give you a nice taste of each place & you can decide if they are worth going back to in the future.
I would like to suggest that for either options you factor in one whole day of travel between places. It will give you a bit of a breather & looking for accommodation can eat up a lot of time if you have not pre-booked.
Also - all your stops are big cities, My experience of that is that they all blur into one after a while. Try including some smaller, out of the way spots. Bath for instance, was mentioned above & is a delightful place to spend some time.
Use the map feature of TravelersPoint to give yourself and others here an idea of your route.
Personaly if I had to chose one itinerary, it would be your first option because I like to take my time on each destination and try to explore somehow in depth, in a leisure pace. Less is more for me. But answer here it depends on your traveling style. What kind of pace you followd on your previous trips? Have you traveled for so long before? What about your friend? And I do not see any reasoning as to why you picked those destinations upon others. What your interests are, what you'd like to see and do on those places?
I feel that even if you are a fast paced traveler, seen more does not mean criss-crossing all of Europe to check places 100s of kms away... You could see many interesting destinations on closer distance . For example google Athens, Nafplion Delphi, Aegina. Are those place similar? I do not think so... Yet, all places mentioned are less than 3 hours straightforward traveling from Athens. You do not have to jumb from Athens to Rome or Istanbul to see something different. Just an example.
Personaly I would suggest you to investigate if you and your friend would feel comfortable to remain flexible. We have itineraries and schedules in our every day life, why to put such merits on our trips too? Knowledge is power, so do your homework and research as much as possible, have some ideas on your mind, but be ready to throw your plans out of the window when on the actual trip.
You could fly to your first destination, spend as many days as you like, then decide on the spot when and where to move on. Repeat on next destination and next and next till your time/money runs out.