I just got some updates from my friends bachelor group and we are going to be going the last week in August so it changes things just a little in that now I am considering taking out Belgium and cutting Venice down to 2 days so that I can visit Rome for 3 days. I am from Texas so a little heat should not bother me. So the updated trip would look like this:

Amsterdam (2 days)
(train or we can fly to Berlin to save time if you think it helps)
Berlin (3 days)
(train)
Prague (2 days)
(train or flight)
Venice (2 days)
(train)
Rome (3 days)
(flight)
Paris (4 days, 1 day trip to Versailles)
(train)
London (3 days)
(flight)
Austin, TX (home)

Thoughts!?

Is it doable ? Yes, should you do it, No - think about how many days and the % of your trip will be lost getting from point A to Z.
Then, look at a map.
I'd chop off Berlin for sure, that doesn't flow. Bruges is nice, but Brussels ?! I wouldn't go out of my way to get to Bruges. No reason to really go to Brussels (IMHO). I'd likely cut off London as well & go from there...If you are going to Munich (from Venice or vice versa)it would be silly to skip Vienna.
This is what I would do - Amsterdam - Prague - Venice - Vienna - Munich - cruise up the Mosel, perhaps hit Strasburg & Champagne & meander over to Paris & depart from there... Still too much, but it is much more compact...

Your really talking about what should be 2 trips here - Amsterdam/London/Paris is a trip & Prague/Italy/Vienna is a trip - Berlin I'd leave out of either itin.

I do not understand this type of itinerary where you hop all over to major cities and spend 2 or 3 days at each. I would plan at least 5 days each for Paris, London, and Rome. And, I would try to include the best of parts of Europe other than major big cities.

bob - the folly of youth...lol

I agree that the above itinerary is two separate trips. You are all over the place and only have 3 weeks. For over a decade, I did 11 weeks straight in Europe, almost annually, and didn't even do that many varied places in one trip. That was back in my university days and a few years after. I've been doing Europe, almost annually, since 1973.

In a three-week period, I would say no more than 4 places if they aren't that far apart from each other.

As Bobthenavigator has pointed out above, I also do not understand that type of itinerary. What will you really get from each place, but jumping from tourist site to tourist site?

Take a look at this classic movie on Youtube and you'll understand what I mean. This is one of my all time favorite classic movies which came out around my freshman year in high school, but I still laugh hysterically when I watch it.

Happy Travels!

Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsx__rv04yI

Happy Travels!

I have to disagree with the above posters - lots of people visit a major city over a week-end.

You can always argue that you need more time for each place.

Before the low-cost companies, European youth would do these kind of itineraries by train all the time.

Look into travel schedules between the cities - maybe allocate one full day to go from Rome to Paris if you are flying low-cost. The schedules are usually "uncomfortable" - our flight from Rome to Paris was at 6 o clock in the morning, which meant taking a taxi from Rome to the airport around 4 in the morning (too tired to do anything else that day). Paris is so spread out it will take time to get from the airport to your lodgings.

IMO, September is the best month to travel, so good for you that the plan changed!

Good luck with the planning.

grendel - I don't disagree, I have flown to Paris, Amsterdam etc. for essentially a long weekend...but it is not ideal & it is even less ideal for someone who is visiting for the first time, particularly when they have sufficient time to see a lot w/out spending a fortune on travel &/or getting from point a to z. Another + is that you should be able to upgrade the places you stay, if you eliminate about half of your travel expense(s).

I'd kill another city and make the route more sequential. For me the easy one to kill is Berlin, it's a bit off the beaten path and apart from a pretty good museum is of little interest unless you are embraced by The Wall and WW2.

I'd look at flying into Prague and out again using cheepo airlines, then trains in Italy. I'd put the extra days into Prague and Venice.

check out skyskanner.com to start with to get a lie of the land

Well I prefer your second itinerary , skipping Belguim is a good idea ( yes, I have been to both Brussels and Bruges and they are skippable in my opinion, plus you are going to Venice anyways so really will be visiting the granddaddy of all canal cites right there, Brugges is mostly chocolate and lace shops , plus the small canals) You are already visiting Germany so can do the beer thing there ( Belguim does have good beer).

I think for 21 days though I would be happier with 4 stops max, we did 26 days this summer and visited 6 places( amsterdam, Paris, Nice, Barcelona, Tossa De Mar, back to Paris) and it still felt like a lot of moving about, and I have been to Europe before so was comfortable with most aspects of how to figure out trains , transport to airports etc.
I would do Amsterdam( well you have a reason to) then train to Paris( 4-5 days), then fly to Prague( 3-4 days) and then Fly to Venice( 2-3 days) Rome( 4-5 days) , sort of a north, east, and south Europeon whirlwind.. but whatever you do, if money is an issue, purchase your plane and train tickets WELL in advance, most go on sale 90-120 days out , a bit more for flights, as cheaper tickets always sell out first. Also, when using a cheapo airline be aware of which airports they use, some use airports that are very inconenvient to city they ( for Paris Ryanair uses Beavais, which is 90 kms from city and not an easy transfer) Look at Easyjet or Vueling.

Fewer stops and longer stays.

All those travel days add up, and they not only eat up your pleasure-time, they are fatiguing. Remember, a two-night stay equals only one full day, with the day before and the day after as travel days. When you say "two days," do you mean two full days (three nights), or one full day (two nights)?

We just spent two nights in Paris, arriving at 8:30 p.m. the first night, and leaving at 7 a.m. after the second night. Gave us only one full day. All we managed to "accomplish" was one museum and a nice dinner out. Most of the day was spent walking, figuring out the Metro and RER system again (hadn't been there for awhile), and walking, wandering, enjoying. It was a great day, and we were only there because we were flying home from Paris. Ordinarily, we would have stayed at least three nights. ANY great town in Europe deserves AT LEAST two full days visit, IMHO, which means three nights' stay.

IMHO you have not left yourselves any time to travel from one city to the next. And you need to remember that 2 nights is a city is only 1 day.

I would cut way back on the number of different places if yuou really want to see much of anything in any of them.

Otherwise you have a lovely tour of the airports and train stations of europe.

(My first trip to europe - when I was 19 - was this many places - but we had 5.5 weeks- and that was still rushed.)

Sure, lots of people go to a European city for a weekend, but there is a monumental difference between doing that and repeating it over and over for 3 solid weeks.

The outlined itinerary is more like a forced march than a vacation. It needs to be cut back to about 4 places. It's not only the blur factor of racing around to too many places in too short a time; it's the needless expense of it. I will never get why people want to shell out gobs of money on transport and not really get to see much of anything.

D;

Isn't it nice you don't have to travel with these lovely responders?

Oh, the "folly" of the "needless expense" you will incur on what amounts to a "forced march" "tour of train stations and airports".

It's a wonder people come in here for advice.

Everyone has there own travel pace. I would not be comfortable traveling at this pace but you might. Still, I suspect that you asked the question because you were in doubt about that.

I struggle with short stays in large cities. A couple days will give me a decent feel for small town but not for a major city. I like time to get a sense of familiarity with a place.

"it's a wonder people come in here for advice."

Typical - aramis didn't offer advice, just complaints about those who are trying to help.

And StCirq is right - a weekend in a major city is fun, but the equivalent of seven weekend visits back to back to back will make your head spin.

You are mostly talking about MAJOR cities. Each has its own issurs re transportation/logistics/acclimating. 2.5 days in London, 3.5 (and one of those spent at Versailles), 2.5 days in Rome,etc . . . just VERY hectic.

The more you move around, the more $$/££/€€ you spend, and the less time you have to see/do anything

"SAnParis2 on Nov 9, 12 at 6:43am
grendel - I don't disagree, I have flown to Paris, Amsterdam etc. for essentially a long weekend...but it is not ideal & it is even less ideal for someone who is visiting for the first time, "

I agree. It's a first visit. Plus, in the OP's original post, he mentions maybe saving Rome for the "next" trip, therefore it seemed clear to me that this was not to be the only trip, so why rush through it with lots of places crammed in? Save some places for the next trip.

"She originally really wanted to visit Rome and I wanted to see Barcelona and Madrid. With the time restraint and traveling in August (heat) we decided it would be best to save that for the next trip."

And also with all of the moving around, with the above itinerary, one has to take into account the time wasted checking into all of the accommodations. More than a few times, rooms haven't been ready when they were supposed to be which cuts into time that could be used to be out experiencing a place.

Happy Travels!

"Before the low-cost companies, European youth would do these kind of itineraries by train all the time"

Yes, I agree that European youth would do these types of itineraries by train all the time. I was living in Europe annually, during entire summers, and had either a 2-month or 3-month Eurail pass and would meet them on trains. I was also a youth then, although an American one.

A lot of the youth who were friends of mine, in the Scandinavian country in which I lived, were also out on such itineraries, but starting from Scandinavia and on to other countries in Europe. However, they weren't starting out on those trips jet-lagged, having come out of an entirely different time zone and they were used to Europe, so not a lot of differences to get used to. They also spoke more than one language; at least my friends did as well as I did, which made things faster and easier.

Happy Travels!

Correction: "They also spoke several languages".

Happy Travels!

To be clear - the trip as outline is physically possible. However, it will be significantly more expensive than staying in fewer places and you will be spending a very large percentge of your time in transit rather than in sightseeing or soaking up the local culture.

As for overnight trains - they are not included in train passes - you need to buy berths in compartments separately (and share with strangers) and the cost is not low. (I know people say they are saving a night hotel cost - but IMHO the train - rocking and discomfort included) are often not any less.

You need to decide what you want to see in each place and then determine how long that will take (Michelin green guide is great for this). You will find that you can't see the Tower of London in an hour - or make your way across London in 15 minutes.

I would lay out your trip by day - indicating how/when you will arrive, what you will see that day and when/how you will leave. For instance, will the trip from Paris to London come out of one of the days in Paris or one of the days in London (you have to lose half a day somewhere). Ditto for all of your other city to city transfers.

Get a map, a train schedule and the Michelin guide and figure out how much time you will have each place versus the minimum time you need. IMHO to see even the most basic sights in Rome takes 3 days (which is 4 nights).

I have to disagree with the above posters - lots of people visit a major city over a week-end. >>

what St. Cirq said - they may do, but not back to back for 3 weeks straight.

IME it is very difficult to orientate yourself in a major city in just 2 days - and if you keep moving, the whole experience just becomes a mush of disparate experiences, none of which are particularly special. It's also quite expensive to travel like this - you never get a chance to find a nice cheap bar or cafe, or if you do, you have to leave it again. and all that travel - tiring AND expensive.

the ideal, IMO, is to mix the trip up - a city, then time in the countryside, perhaps an activity, then another city. With side trips, an itinerary like that could easily fill 3 weeks, and you'd have a holiday to really remember.

And when are you going to do laundry? You can lose close to half a day doing this if you have to find a laundromat, get change, figure out how to work the machines (instructions will be in a language you don't understand), wait for the wash to be done, then wait for the dryer to be done, then fold and repack your clothes and get them back to your accommodation. So you lose a big chunk of your time in a city where you have little time to waste.

If you wash stuff by hand in your room, you have to hang it to dry, so you have to have time for the drying to take place.

We have been to Europe about 15 or 16 times, to many different countries, and we still find that it takes much longer than you think to get your bearings, figure out transportation, get to your hotel, or local site, etc. Places you want to see are closed on the day you are in a city. Or they are closed from noon to 4 pm. And so on.

My wife and I have been to Europe many times; the posters above who recommend fewer cities and more time in them are correct in at least one aspect: each time you change cities, you essentially lose one whole day -- early departure from your hotel, trek to the train station, go to the next city, and then locate your hotel. It is even worse if you fly, as the waiting time in the airports eats into your available time.

I think you're trying to cover too much territory. If I were you I would assume that you will return to Europe at other times over your lifetime.

<<Isn't it nice you don't have to travel with these lovely responders?>>

And so many of them, too, all with sage advice garnered by experience.

Lucky you don't have to travel with Aramis, who has no advice whatsoever. None.

You need to read more of my posts janisj.

There is a difference between helping people take the trip they want to take and insulting them by suggesting they are foolish, wasting their money, and making a big mistake by not taking the trip the responder thinks they should.

Some people want to see as many of the the great cities of Europe as they can and only have 10 days, I find it quite sad to see some stuffy responders suggest they simply stay in the responders favourite city/country (a very common approach), or not bother at all because it will be a waste of their time and money.

Not everyone wants to travel they way the responder does, but some people simply can't accept that and believe it is their duty to "correct".

Sometimes it all seems too much like the well meaning mother in law (or mother) criticizing her daughter about how she is handling the new baby. Just like the critical mother, everyone is just trying to help and give the benefit of their experience.

Aramis - did you read the OP's original post? S/he asked if the trip was too much. The responses endeavor to answer that question. You have your point of view, others have theirs and don't need your criticism. If you want to differ, that's your prerogative but that does not make the other replies incorrect.

Llet the OP decide if it is too much, based upon the advice and limitations offered by those who post here.

Just saying someone is ridiculous for wanting to do this is not helpful. But giving reasons why their trip should be more limited is helpful. The OP did ask if this was too much, so we are giving the benefit of our own experience.

St. Cirq said; (subsequently described as "sage" advice)

"The outlined itinerary is more like a forced march than a vacation. It needs to be cut back to about 4 places. It's not only the blur factor of racing around to too many places in too short a time; it's the needless expense of it. I will never get why people want to shell out gobs of money on transport and not really get to see much of anything."

Because they are not you and don't necessarily want to travel like you or see the things you do. As hard as that may be to believe, it is really that simple.

Aramis, perhaps there is a psychology board you could join to post on. This is a travel board, where people come to ask other experienced travelers for their advice, as the OP did. We gave it to her. You still haven't.

Aramis -- most of your recent posts have a nasty side w/o offering anything much in the way of help.

We all know you don't respect anyone's suggestions/advice but how about cutting the snide personal attacks.

I seem to have lost sight of "daniloesierra", if you are still reading where are you up to in your plans?

daniloesierra, a trip like this CAN be done but consider your girlfriend's interests before embarking on something like this. I took a similar trip in March with my wife. We saw London, Brussels (day trip to Ghent), Paris, Lisbon, and Madrid in about 18 days. After 6 days my wife starting to become really tired, indifferent, and stressed. I like bouncing around from place to place too but the one thing i seriously underestimated was the time it takes to relocate from one area to another. (Someone above mentioned it) because of a delay, we only had a little over a day and a half in beautiful, sunny Lisbon. it was criminal!!!