hannsg620

Hi!

I have not been to Europe before, it'll be two people traveling. I really like what I can find about Bruges, but London is..London. Do you guys think London is missable or does it have so much to see that I just have to see it? I'm flexible and can be swayed either way, I know London should be more expensive, but ignore costs please.

If I go to London, then it would be two full days in London and Paris, one full day in Amsterdam. If I go to Bruges it'll be two full days in Paris, two full days in Amsterdam, and one full day in Bruges.

Thoughts?

t0t1t2

I think the London+ Amsterdam +Paris combination is quite a lot of hassle where Bruges can be a quite convenient stop on the way from Amsterdam to Paris.

By the way, how are you planning to travel between those cities?

BRU2m10

What are you looking for? What do you like?

Ghent > Bruges, more convenient stop too.
Brussels even better from a logistical point of view. But yeah, Brussels...

hannsg620

I'm planning on traveling by train, so it looks like 2-4 hours between cities.

Ah so Paris>Bruges>Amsterdam is less travel time and maybe cheaper than London>Paris>Amsterdam. Cool, I didn't realize that but it makes sense when looking at a map. Do you happen to know whether that will be convenient to stop in Bruges on the way, because it looks a little out of the way from the main line between Paris and Amsterdam.

I like history but not necessary museums. Any big attractions will most likely be a plus, but I'm researching both (don't know a lot) cities.

Hmm so you would say Ghent is better? I haven't heard about it, I'm looking it up now!

t0t1t2

It is indeed a bit out of the way from the main line. and you need at least 1 change of trains to get there.

For more detailed information I would advise you to check the website of the Belgium and/or Dutch railways.

elchris

Depends on what you like, but personally Brugge > London. London is also hit/miss with weather which plays a big role. It rained all days when I went, couldn't wait to get out by the end. Plus, 1 day in Amsterdam is very unsatisfactory, at least with 2 days you'll enjoy it more (it's beautiful).

BRU2m10

Brussels, Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp are all on Thalys lines.
https://www.thalys.com/be/en/

If you go from Belgium to Amsterdam, you don't need to take the (more expensive, yet faster) high-speed train, one can also take the 'Benelux-train' that is cheaper. Difference can be high for same-day tickets. For the Thalys, it is better to buy advance tickets.

This is not very specific. It really depends what ones cup of tea is.
A hundred years ago the north of France, corner of Belgium, had the first world war. There are a lot of activities (next to the normal stuff to visit).

Some people like fancy dining, the region around Bruges has the highest concentration of Michelin stars in the world (13.2/100.000 people). Although this fact is a little abstract when one does not intend to visit them all.

Ghent is a little more vivid and more authentic. People that have visited both tend to express a preference for Ghent.
It is also a (marginally) better fit to a Paris->x->Amsterdam schema.
But this depends on your interests.

Also important is when (??) you plan to do the visit... Especially for events/concerts.

I would not say that London is 'missable' btw, but one can always save it for a next trip...

emma69

I like Bruges, but I love London - there is simply so much to do, whatever your interests. History wise, there is tons to do, The Tower of London is great, St Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben, Houses of Parliament, Hampton Court, and dozens of other places. Non historical attractions like the London Eye, or a Thames river boat trip, or a wander around Greenwich are also fun. Great food - whatever you fancy you can find it, from a great curry, to fine French dining, to a greasy spoon for egg and chips. Tons of bars and pubs, and lots of nightlife from theatre to clubs, to the weird and wonderful! Fantastic shopping, from markets to high end designer, and it is such a walkable city (with the odd hop on the tube for longer distances) you can really see a lot of it over two days.

Sjoerd

London, Paris and Amsterdam all in one 8 day trip is simply too much. You will be overwhelmed and probably very tired by the time you reach Amsterdam. For this reason alone I would go for Paris -> Bruges /Ghent -> Amsterdam.

The choice between Bruges and Ghent is a difficult one. Bruges is very touristy and rather small, Ghent is larger and more of a "real city". Both are beautiful. I like them both.

JBord

I agree completely. My opinion would be to spend one night in Bruges/Ghent (two if you arrive late at night), and get more than one night in Amsterdam. While I don't see Amsterdam as providing the history you like, it is a really great city to explore and get lost in. Even if museums aren't your thing, I find both the Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh to be among the very best...worth visiting one while you're there.

dimramon

I would say Bruges, but then, I am biased since that's where I was born.

bibbju

I'm really surprised at the number of people preferring Bruges to London. Convenience isn't everything! If you haven't been to either place, London will blow your mind and you won't want to leave! Whereas Bruges/Ghent will seem very quaint and pretty but probably won't get under your skin like London will.

I'd go with London > Paris > Amsterdam. All achievable in 8 days as the trains are quick and reliable (and you can snooze on them if you need to recharge your batteries) although I'm sure you'll wish you had longer in all three cities. I used to commute between London and Paris and would often do London>Paris>London>Paris>London between Mon & Thurs. It's not tiring at all....plenty of people travel for much longer each day standing up on squashed full trains into London (and paying a premium for the "pleasure") to work and back. One Eurostar and one Thalys over the space of 8 days is hardly going to wipe you out.

NickB

London and Bruges are so different that they are impossible to compare. It is a bit like comparing New York City and, say, Carmel in California.

Bruges is a cute, twee, chocolate-boxy kind of town. Personally this just is not my cup of tea at all (As some have suggested, I would rather go for Ghent which is rather less artificial and touristy) but a lot of people love it so it really depends of what your tastes are.

London is a major European capital which has infinitely more to offer than Bruges. But that, in itself, may be a weakness if your trip is only 8 days long and you are trying to fit a visit to Paris and Amsterdam in that time. The fact that Bruges is a small place whose charms are relatively quickly exhausted is probably an advantage from that perspective.

It seems to me that trying to fit London, Paris and Amsterdam all in an 8 days trip is too ambitious and, for that reason, I would go for Bruges (or rather Ghent personally ) over London If I were in your shoes. Also, as others have said, from a logistics point of view, Flanders fits ideally in between a visit to Paris and one to Amsterdam.

JBord

I don't think anyone is suggesting that London is not a million times better than Bruges. The question for the OP to consider is whether 3 large cities can be adequately experienced in a week for a first time visitor to Europe. Personally, I think London is worth a trip in itself.

Also, while I agree with your thoughts on commuting via train, remember that the OP could possibly be tired or have jet lag after a flight. I think I'd be disappointed in leaving London before I was ready!

Another option is London & Paris only, but it seems the OP has already booked a return flight from AMS. One day in Amsterdam seems like a waste to me.

missmelon437

I think it depends on how many days you want to spend in Paris. I think 8 days and two big cities is tough. AMS could provide enough entertainment for quite a few days.

I did this: Paris > Bruges > Amsterdam

It was an easy trip all via train. Bruges can be covered in 1-2 days and is really beautiful.