hannsg620

Only have the choice of a few destinations in Europe in early June for 9 days. Posted in this subforum because I want to get around by train while in Europe, so although its a broad question hopefully you guys have some insight.

I don't want to average more than $100 per night for rooming, whether it be a hotel or hostel or something from airbnb.

Unless the destination is especially interesting (or maybe easy/cheap to move around in the country), I would prefer to try to move around in this time frame to see as much as possible.

1.) It'll be two people travelling 2.) Neither of us have been to Europe 3.) Besides the hotel budget, looking to save money on food purchases by eating cheap mostly, activities can have a reasonable budget, nothing crazy. 3.) Climate doesn't matter 4.) Interests are pretty varied, noteworthy is interest in history but not necessarily in museums.

So I'm thinking cities like London or Paris are more at the top of the list because as far as I know, they are some of the easiest/closest places to go to and from by train.

One more thing: It could be possible for me to fly out of a different city than the one I flew in to. (For example, flying into London then train to Paris and then either stay in Paris the rest of the time or go to another city via train and then come back to Paris to fly out)

So here are possible destinations, the flight's all are around the same cost with Copenhagen a couple hundred cheaper than the most expensive flight:

Amsterdam
Barcelona
Berlin
Copenhagen
Dublin
London
Paris

Thanks for any help!

exilencfc

The good news is that Europe has a lot of history you can see at little or no cost - just by walking around or riding public transport. The best city for this is probably Rome which isn't on your list.

The big issue with Copenhagen is that Denmark is one of the most expensive countries in Europe - so your flight savings would be offset by higher costs whilst you're there (though you'd still come out ahead). Copenhagen is also quite a long way from anywhere else on that list. And personally I didn't find it very exciting.

As your budget is quite limited it might be worth reconsidering and looking towards Eastern Europe as that tends to be cheaper. You could look at starting in Berlin which has tons of history and is quite cheap by western European standards. Then Prague/Budapest/somewhere in Poland (Warsaw, Krakow, possibly even Poznan which still has a steam operated rail service) as fancy takes you. There are overnight trains from Berlin to Prague and Budapest which is fun and quite good financially as your travel and hotel costs are combined into one.

Wherever you decide to go, the big risk is trying to pack too much into the time, with a 9 day trip you probably won't get to more than two cities, possibly three (you may manage some day trips from the city you are staying in to somewhere else). London and Paris would be a good combination as you can travel very quickly and easily between them by Eurostar. You could combine either of them with Amsterdam which would take longer to get to but is probably a bit cheaper than either. Dublin is a bit out on a limb but it's relatively small so a good option as your time is limited. I think that Barcelona has good rail connections to Paris and it is quite different to the other cities on your list in terms of architecture (and I think in terms of general vibe - but I've only been once and that was for the day and I had a hangover so I wasn't in the best position to judge...)

MHG

... but these two cities are exactly the opposite of your intention to go on the cheap.
They are easy to access but very pricey - in particular regarding accomodation but also getting around them.

Lot´s of history and affordable are cities like Berlin/Barcelona and generally eastern european cities like Prague/Warsaw/Bratislava as well as Tallinn/Riga/Vilnius.
Expensive Vienna (accomodation) can be easily combined with Bratislava as the coaches/trains between both cities are frequent and reasonably priced and take just 1-1.5hrs.

Really fast/easy train access has its price in Western Europe.
So, London/Paris/Amsterdam/Brussels/etc. are quite close to each other and well connected by fast rail but train travel between these cities is rather on the expensive side coupled with high costs for accomodation ...

I would recommend to first decide what subjects are the most important for you and only then you should start finding the right balance between the amount of money you´re willing to spend and sacrifices you´ll inevitably have to make.

Sjoerd

This will, as you say, be your first trip to Europe. It is hard to believe that you don't have any preference based on things you have seen on TV, read in books, heard from friends,.......
I would recommend that you think about this, talk to your travel companion and try to come up with a shortlist of places, areas, countries, ....., that you both fancy. We all have our preferences, but those are not necessarily your preferences!

Also, big cities can be nice, but after 3 or 4 days in very-busy Paris or London, you may want to include a rural stop somewhere.
Finally, limit yourself! Two cities (+ maybe a day trip to a nearby smaller town or rural area) will nicely fill up your 9 days.

t0t1t2

I agree with Sjoerd. Think of a combination of cities: Amsterdam, Brussels/Ghent and Paris can be visited in 9 days, but will be a completely different experience then say the Baltics (Vilnius, Kaunas, Riga, Talinn) or Berlin-Poznan-Cracow-Warsaw for instance.

arlflyer

If it weren't for the cost issue, for a first timer looking to see a lot, I would immediately say Switzerland. You can see three different cultures/cuisines/languages, tons of different architecture and history, amazing natural features, and huge variations in climate, all in a pretty compact area. All with super-efficient public transit and no worry of hassles, scams, etc. But the cost though.

Mandolin

Stick to one big city. London, Paris, or Rome would serve your needs and you can easily fill up a 9 day schedule for any one of these three cities. And there are interesting nearby sights around these cities for the price of a cheap train ticket and a day trip.

My second three choices would be Amsterdam, Berlin, or Madrid. I would leave Copenhagen out for now. I have lived there before; it has its charms; but yes it is expensive.

nrr

Since low cost is high on your list, no matter what city you go to, eating in restaurants might prove a budget breaker.
You would probably save 50% (or more), by assembling your meals at a super market and dining in your room.
Switzerland has magnificent scenery (mountains, lakes, valleys etc.) which can be viewed by rail.
Your 9 day time frame, is too short; Paris and London alone need a month (each) to see them properly.
You really should read some guide books and plan your itinerary properly.

ProleOnParole

If it's your first trip to Europe and there's no particular place you've always wanted to see, I'd go for Paris and Rome first of all. I haven't been to Barcelona but from what I know about it, that would be my third choice, with London perhaps the fourth (particularly for the art galleries and museums, not sure if you're into that kind of thing). Mind you none of these places are particularly cheap. I think the budget to live decently would be more like ~€100/night in Paris or Rome, or ~Ł100/night in the case of London, especially as you're going there in the peak season.

Copenhagen is nice and I'm sure you'll enjoy it; it might be a good opportunity to go there now if you can fly there cheaply but otherwise it's not a must-see place for your first trip. Still, even if you manage to get there without spending a lot of money, it's hardly a budget destination. Berlin you can skip; if you can only see one city in Germany, make it Munich. (Amsterdam and Dublin, I haven't been to.)

Outside of your list, I'd first of all suggest Prague; even if much of it has been converted to a tourist ghetto with hardly any local people venturing nearby, the old town is still picturesque, and the accommodation costs are much lower. I've also really enjoyed Brussels, and you can stay there comparatively cheaply too, for Western Europe. (Much) farther east, the old town in Riga is also very beautiful and staying there should not be costly at all. There are also many smaller cities that might be just as interesting for a short trip, one such place is Bruges. I've also always wanted to visit Lisbon, and I believe it's well worth it, and one more very decent city that seems to be very cheap to fly into is Stockholm.

Perhaps you will find something interesting among the suggestions above but on a general note: Europe is large, and you only have 9 days. The transport expenses will eat a huge portion of your budget and, perhaps more importantly, you'll just get tired from all the travel. I think the amount of time you have is more appropriate to visit 1-2 cities at most, and save the rest for your next trip.

Also, while you say the climate is not a concern, I wouldn't discount it entirely. Copenhagen will be very pleasant in the summer, while Rome might be hot (it was perfect when I went there in February). Just a footnote though, good luck with your trip!

Sjoerd

This is an example why the OP needs to make his/her own list and not rely too much on advice from strangers on the Internet: one of my favourite cities in Europe (and the world) is Berlin (and it is relatively cheap too!), and I find Munich OK at best.

exilencfc

I think Berlin is far more interesting than Munich.
The problem with Stockholm is that it's even more expensive than Copenhagen. It is lovely though.

I do agree that weather is worth considering, a lot of mainland European cities do get very hot in July/August - Paris is well known for it.

ProleOnParole

Just for the record, I enjoyed my visit to Berlin! I really did! I'm just trying to help the OP here, and as he didn't say anything about his preferences, I'm assuming that on his first trip to Europe, he'd want a more "mainstream" itinerary, whereas Berlin, I think, would be more for people who know they want to go exactly there, and what for.

I agree all the opinions will be subjective and that's a great point being made by Sjoerd: I wouldn't trust a stranger on the Internet making choices for me where I should go on holiday. On the other hand, I think the OP is now just collecting opinions to consider, and will not blindly follow anything suggested to him.

To the OP: I think you would get better advice if you gave us a list of 3-5 places you've been to that you enjoyed (and what you liked them for), and a list of another 3-5 places you travelled to only to find them uninteresting. Otherwise, the recommendations you'll get here will be very general and/or subjective.

arlflyer

OP, please disregard this poster's comment quoted above. This comment or a variation on it comes up in every trip planning thread on every travel website in existence, and it is purely useless and unconstructive. It is made by people who are either self employed, voluntarily unemployed, or retired and made of money and who are trying to make you feel bad about having the life and commitments that you do (or are trying to make themselves feel superior). The assertion that you should not even try to see the world because you don't have months at a time is in my opinion sickening and contrary to all that FT and the travel community should stand for.

In 9 days you can make many memories that will last a lifetime and will be able to see more of the world than 99% of the humans ever born have been able to (most people never left their village until 100 years ago).

toomanybooks

I'd try to spend more time in fewer places, in general. Running from city to city is tiring and burns time.

You'll be back.

JBord

OP, I hope you'll come back to provide some detail on what's important to you besides cost.

My thoughts are these:
1. If you want to see a lot of historic and tourist sites in your time, consider London and Paris only. Staying outside the main areas of the city won't be as expensive but still not really budget friendly. You'll pay but for your first time you'll come home feeling like you accomplished a lot.

2. If value is more important and you really want a different experience, try central/Eastern Europe as others have suggested. Budapest is a wonderful city and you can stay in a very nice hotel for very little. You can easily combine that with Bratislava and Vienna (which is expensive but is one of Europe's premier cities).

3. You could also do Prague and Vienna, stopping at a smaller Czech town for a night or two.