I would then choose 5 cities.
There is more to travelling, than having a long list of been to places.
Take it easy. If us go too fast, u will not have time to soak up the atmosphere of each city and not meet so many people.
U can always plan another trip, to see more places, at a later date.
Jesus Christ thats plenty of time taking all kinds of transport. What are u gonna do in Zurich? Bern is veyr nice, been there many times, but haven't heard much from Zurich. This could be a good thing perhaps, but i'm just not sure.
Yeah, you should pick 5 cities and spend about a week in each, so as to get a feel of the place, its culture and people, etc. It's just not viable to squeeze so many places in a short period of time, you won't be able to see anything and you'll just end up feeling tired and that you've wasted your time.
okay ive redone the itinerairy. no zig zag here and less destinations. how is this?
frankfurt, brussels, amsterdam, hamburg, copenhagen, berlin, prague, vienna, (budapest -maybe), munich, zurich, milan, nice, lyon, paris, london. i dont really know what is the recommended alotted days for each city but i know paris and london should have more than the others i think. what do you guys recommend?
in 5 weeks? Well there is absolutely nothing to do in: Frankfurt (unless you like banks) Hamburg and Lyon ditto so I would really skip these places all together and for example, in Germany, just do Munich (top quality city, 3 days would do, including one to cure your hangover!!) Berin (at least 3 days, it is huge and the tourist parts are spread out across the entire city.) Similarly, in France spend the time saved by skipping Lyon and spend more time in Paris (3 days for sure) and Nice (2 day tops, it is really small but obviously there is Monte Carlo etc close by.) Other "compact" cities would be Vienna (I had "done" it in 2) Zurich (nothing much to see and it makes London look cheap) and Prague. You could seriously walk through the tourist areas of that city in about an hour. As for London, it is like Berlin but twice the size, use the Tube and it is pretty easy to get round. However, you would need 4 day min to just skim the surface. The best thing about London is that the best parts are free (any museums, if of interest and the parks, even the tube's day or weekly passes are reasonable.) The worst thing is that everything else is very expensive, £3+ for a pint of beer! So I would end up here at the end of your trip!
It all depends on what you want to "achieve" from this tour, see Europe through train windows, get a "feel" of the continent by spending time in its various cities, or simply focus on the main parts. It has something for everyone really, so enjoy it!
What does everyone think!!?!?
That question at the end I find it quite funny. It sounds kind of asking permission to your father for something that he in no way would let you do it, and you know it very well before asking it!
For me this looks more kind a treasure hunt itanary. Everybody commented on the quality of travelling, a week/city...etc. But if I take a wild guess, your motto is quite clear: 'quantity not the quality'!
Why have an Itinery at all?
Why not go from Halifax and head south? make your way across the channel and go from there?
you could have some vague destination in mind and just meander your way there, lingering in nice places and rushing through places you dislike.
Part of the joy of backpacking is the freedom to do what you want, whenever the hell you want to. you might miss out on this if youve always got a deadline to meet.
If your going on your own youll probably meet up with other travellers and want to travel with them for a bit. Having a strict schedule will only hinder you.
I think Hafjamark might be right.
I usually have a plan,when traveling, but it is always very flexible. Sometimes I change it mid trip, if i meet somebody who is fun, or if I hear about someplace better to go.