sportzcrazyy13

Hi All,

I am going to be taking about a 3-4 week trip to Europe with my family (parents and brother). We are currently thinking about traveling to 6 cities during this time. My current travel plan look like this:

• August 31 - September 4/5 --> Copenhagen
• September 4/5 - September 10/11 --> Stockholm
• September 10/11 --> September 14/15 --> Berlin
• September 14/15 --> September 18 --> Prague
• September 18 --> September 21 --> Vienna
• September 21 --> September 25 --> Munich

A few things I want to point out are that the time we stay in Stockholm is non-negotiable, because we have a wedding to attend on one of the days. Also, I definitely want to be in Munich during Oktoberfest (starts on September 22nd). Finally, the start and end dates are pretty much set (give or take a day).

My main question is that the trip seems a little bit rushed. I was thinking about taking Vienna completely out and lengthening the stays in Berlin, Prague, and Munich. Any thoughts on this?

Also, how many days would be suggested for each city if we were to visit them?

We are looking for/are interested in places that have a combination of the following:

• Nice scenery (beaches, hikes, anything nature related) - action adventures are a major plus (cliff jumping, white water river rafting, snowboarding, etc.)
• Culture (museums, castles, churches, concerts, shows)
• Good Food
• We are also willing to take day trips if the travel time isn't too long

Thanks in advance!

Mwenenzi

Been to Eu before?
Definitely too many places in a short time.
While Eu is small it will take some time to get between destinations
Route

sportzcrazyy13

Yes, I've been to Europe before. I have been through a good portion of Spain and England. For the further trips (Copenhagen/Stockholm, Stockholm/Berlin) we are planning on taking flights to.

sooge_sj

You have not mentioned how you plan to travel between these cities. Are you taking the train, or do you plan to fly? I took the train from Copenhagen to Stockholm in September 2-15 and I thought it was a very pleasant ride.

To me, 4 days in each city, excluding travel days, is ideal. But I am the kind of person who gets up in the morning and spends the entire days sightseeing. So I can really pack a lot in to 4 days

Logistically, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Prague, Vienna, and Munich would make more sense. But I realize you have a specific dates you have to be in Stockholm and Munich.

sportzcrazyy13

We plan on doing a combination of flying and train rides. If it will take more than half a day to get anywhere, probably just take a flights so we don't lose extra time.

Unfortunately, it's not completely about logistics, because as you mentioned we are aiming at specific dates to be in Stockholm and Munich. Can you tell me why you picked Vienna over Berlin?

sooge_sj

Opps. That was a typo on my part. I dropped Berlin from the list by mistake. I think all those cities are worth seeing. But I usually do two or three cities in about 2 weeks. Like, Copenhagen and Stockholm, or Vienna, Bratislava and Salzburg, or Prague and Budapest, or Berlin, Warsaw, and Krakow (which I haven't done yet, but plan to do in the near future).

If you like action adventure a lot, how about skipping Prague and Vienna, and adding Switzerland. I spent 5 days in Interlaken and tried stuff like paraliging, which was a blast.

sportzcrazyy13

My possible alternative schedule would look something like this.

• August 31 - September 4 --> Copenhagen
• September 4 - September 10 --> Stockholm
• September 10 - September 15 --> Berlin
• September 15 - September 20 --> Prague
• September 20 - September 25 --> Munich

Again, not really sure which city to cut out or if I should cut one out (I cut Vienna out here).

deniah

I dont see many Nature destinations on your list.

upper austria / tyrol / alps austria would have beautiful scenery of mountains and lakes, hiking, alpine coasters during the summer and spring, summer concerts, churches... more cultural stuff as you get into the capital

how about opera on the lake in bregenz / voralberg / west austria



or opera in a rock quarry in st margarethen

JBord

Ok, I'm going to be the contrarian. I don't think the itinerary is too rushed for nearly a month. Will you see every possible site and do every side trip? No. But it's a decent amount of time to enjoy each stop. Since you haven't been to this part of Europe before, I like that you're covering some ground which may give you an idea of an area you'd like to come back to in the future.

Now I'll contradict myself a little and say the time allotted to Prague and Vienna is a little short. The rest of the time frames seem about right. I think you'd be fine with the initial itinerary, but my recommendation would be to take out Berlin and spread that time between Prague and Vienna. Lots to do in both those wonderful cities and there are also some good side/day trips available. In any case, it looks like you've though out the high level itinerary well (not always the case here ), and it looks like a fun trip.

dulciusexasperis

I see a real disconnect between some of your interests and your plan. You mention beaches and outdoor activities. Obviously, a list of cities is not going to give you any of that. They are only OK for the 'cultural' interests you list. If you really want to include some outdoor activities like hiking or river rafting etc. then I agree with sooge_sj, that it would make more sense to drop a city and add an area with lots of outdoor activities available such as the Alps.

Regarding how long to spend in a given city, that is a 'how long is a piece of string' question. Some people will tell you they can see all that interests them somewhere in a couple of days while others will tell you they spent a week or more and still didn't get to all their interests. That's up to you to try and determine if you are going to try and pre-plan all your time. I have two comments in that regard.

First, I use the Rule of 3s as a basic research/planning tool. That says, never spend less than 4 nights, 3 full days in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B. Note the 'less than', it is intended as a minimum. Most people would agree for example that somewhere like Rome, London, Paris, etc. need more than 3 full days to really do them any justice. Note the 4 nights, that is to allow for a travel day between places. Even with a short move between places, you always lose at least half a day making the move, so that day cannot be counted as being in either A or B. If I don't think a place is likely to hold my interest for 3 or more days, it doesn't even make my list. A plan that has my spending more than 25% of my days on moves, is not best use of time in my opinion. I want to move as little as possible in order to maximize the use of my time. I see travel days as lost days.

Second, I don't believe anyone can know ahead of time, how long a place will hold their interest unless they have been there before. I am an advocate of a 'winging it' approach to vacation travel. I may do research on half a dozen places that I think will interest me but all I book is my flight to A and if I must a return from somewhere else. If I have a fixed date in the middle for a wedding or something then fine, I will expect to be there on that date but what goes before or after is not pre-planned and pre-booked. When I get to A, I stay until I am ready to leave. That may be 1 day or it may be the entire time available. If you have ever heard someone (or worse, yourself) say, 'I wish we had stayed another day' or 'I wish we had booked less time in X', that is why I do not pre-plan any more than I absolutely must. I never want to make either of those two statements about my travels.

Most people tend to use a phrase like, 'I want to see/do as much as possible'. But they confuse the word 'much' with the word 'many'. They are not synonymous. Quantity does not beat quality. The way to see/do as much as possible is to spend your time in places, not in between places. Each time you move, you lose time that could have been spent in a place. So in travel as in many things, less is more. The less you move, the more you see and do. What matters is not how many places you visit but what you got out of each day you had. If you are getting maximum enjoyment, experience, etc. out of a day in A, gong to B will not get you more than that out of a day. When I am ready to leave A and not before or after, I move on to B, rinse and repeat. I may only get to 2 or 3 places out of my 6 possible but I will get the maximum possible out of my total time that way.

sportzcrazyy13

Thanks for all the responses.

I know some of the activities I listed don't really fit with the given cities, but I was hoping some of them at least offer some options within that realm. Even if its by taking a day trip somewhere. There's definitely certain aspects of all the cities I mentioned that interests me. I also forgot to mention nightlife is a huge plus.

Deniah, the only reason I'm not dipping into Switzerland is because my parents have already been there and I plan on making that a different trip sometime in the future. Thanks for the Opera suggestions, those look awesome and I'll definitely look into them.

JBord, I definitely plan on coming back to the area in the future and knowing to some degree what the cities offer will help me zero in on what area I would like to spend more time in. Can you briefly tell me why you chose cutting Berlin out and chose Vienna and Prague instead?

dulciusexasperis, I like the points you bring up of kind of going with the flow and taking as much time as needed in a place before moving on, but wouldn't that increase your costs a lot more? I definitely think I would like to do that on future trips, but unfortunately for this one as I mentioned I will be travelling with family and my dad is a bit of a control freak (needs a somewhat solid itinerary), so I would like to cater to his needs at some level.

Thanks again!

JBord

Generally, I feel like Vienna and Prague have much more to offer in terms of tourism than Berlin. Berlin is great but the other two are among the best in Europe in my opinion. Vienna, in particular, offers some nice side trips. For example, with your interests, you can actually rent bikes and ride along the Danube through the Wachau Valley region. The abbey at Melk is another day trip that gets mentioned often. When I went, I took the train because my mother was with me, but even at Melk you can climb flights of stairs that wind up the mountain to get to the abbey at the top...which is worth touring. Prague, like Berlin, has great nightlife by the way. The music scene, whether current of classical, is fantastic too.

Bottom line, you could easily spend your ~3 days in each of the two cities just enjoying the cities and still not see everything. For me, 3 days in Berlin is plenty. Others here will disagree with that, and that's ok. You'll need to do your research and figure out what fits your style best.

Ok, I guess that wasn't brief...but hope it helps.

Mwenenzi

Berlin, Prague, Vienna & Munich are very very broadly sort of the same: Germanic - old Austro Hungarian empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire

Copenhagen & Stockholm Scandinavian are quite different.

dulciusexasperis

No it will not necessarily increase your costs at all. That is the common perception but no one can give you statistical evidence to prove it to be true. You are as likely to get the lowest price for a hotel room by showing up on the day as you are by booking online 2 months in advance. The travel industry and the online booking agencies (OTAs) in particular, work really hard at getting you to believe if you don't book with them today, you will pay more or may have to sleep on a park bench. 'We get you the best price' and 'only 3 rooms left'.

The hotel industry changes just like anything else and the hotels are now starting to try and cut out the OTAs. Look at some hotel's own websites and you will see things like, 'Best Price Guarantee' and 'X discount for booking direct.'

In your case in particular, you are talking about Europe where far more hotels are non-chain hotels. I can't remember the last time I stayed in a Hilton, Marriott, etc. in Europe. I far prefer an individual hotel with some individual character to the chain hotels. In N. America, the chains are the norm with few independent hotels any more but in Europe the opposite is the case. These independent hotels all have their own websites nowadays and amazingly, all have a phone you can call and actually talk to a real live person on the front desk. They have the ability to give you the best price every time if they choose to.

The bottom line is this sportscrazy, no one can tell you that you will pay more or less using a given method of booking rooms whether ahead of time or on the day. But what I can absolutely tell you is that the most flexible way is to 'wing it'. What price do you put on the freedom to get up each morning and say, 'so what do I want to do today? Stay here or move on?' I say again, anyone who has ever said, 'I wish we had stayed longer' or 'I wish we had left sooner', obviously was following an itinerary.

Having said that, not everyone is suited to winging it. Some do need a pretty rigid plan to follow or they are not comfortable. In that sense, it is to each his own but in terms of costs, that misconception needs to be put to bed.

WorldLux

I'm not a massive fan of Berlin. I think it is an ugly city and that the only redeeming feature are its inhabitants. My preferred cities in Germany are Hamburg and Munich. You could consider Amsterdam.