Please sign in to post.

Where should I go in Europe to see as much as possible in 9 days? (Selected Destinations)

I have an opportunity to go to Europe in early June for 9 days (Fly out on the 10th day). But I'm leaving from Iceland (If it matters, I'm American) so only have the choice of a few destinations.

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.

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!

Posted by
4125 posts

With 9 days, the goal of moving around is diametrically opposed to the goals of saving money and seeing as much as possible.

Travel from city to city will both add to expenses and preclude sightseeing.

Instead, pick 1 or 2 sight-rich cities (if 2, with good rail connections). For instance: London-Paris; Amsterdam-Paris; Paris with day trips.

Keep it simple, plan well, and you will see a lot.

Posted by
9 posts

Thanks for the reply!

Ignoring costs for the moment, what are your thoughts on the logistics of London > Paris > Amsterdam > Copenhagen via train? (fly into London and out of Copenhagen) (night train from Amsterdam to Copenhagen)

That would be one full day in each city plus one extra full day.

Or if that is too much, I could just cut out Amsterdam.

Posted by
507 posts

That sounds better, thename1000. I was going to ask why skip Amsterdam instead of Copenhagen? You have it right.

I have seen recommendations that one spend a minimum of two days in one city. You need to figure in your travel time between cities, too.

Personally, there is more than enough places to see to fill 4 days in both London & Paris, leisurely being the operative word. :-)

Posted by
4125 posts

London > Paris > Amsterdam is feasible and, if you don't expect to see a lot, a nice set of choices. The train trips, and related checkings out and in and orientations, will take up most, but not all, of two of your days. A'dam one of the easiest airports for your flight home.

Planning ahead will help you to maximize the time you have.

Posted by
13071 posts

I can't see myself spending less than 3 nights in any of those cities, with London and Paris deserving at least 4 or 5 nights each.
In 9 days (probably 8 nights) I would therefore choose only 2 cities.
Paris, London and Amsterdam are reasonably close to one another and are very well connected by fast trains. I would choose two of those three if you only have 8 nights on the ground.
Doing all 3 would be ideal, but you would need at least 10-12 nights on the ground, which you don't seem to have.
The choice is yours. All 3 are wonderful, although I think Paris and London would be my choice.

Posted by
6725 posts

The kind of 'seeing' you do in a trip like this with one day in a major city is of about the same quality as renting a video -- in fact, you'd be better off getting the whole Rick Steves library and watching them -- would save money to.

This trip is all about getting there with almost no being there. With only 9 nights on the ground/8 full days, you should identify two places and really explore what they have to offer. You will see a lot more that way and experience a lot more. Riding trains and checking in and out of hotels and traveling to and from trains and airports is the least fun part of any trip -- why design a trip that is all about that? YOu could fly into London and out of Paris with the train between them. Each of these cities needs more than 4 days -- but each will pay off 4 days. Flying into Paris, using Vueling or Easyjet between and then out of Barcelona would be another cool trip. There are tons of day trips around Paris and several interesting ones near Barcelona -- we did Figueroa and Montsarrat when we were there. The day trips near Paris take an hour or so of travel and you have literally dozens of options e.g. Reims, Chartres, Versailles, Rouen, Senlis, Auvers sur Oise -- even a train to Tours and a mini van tour of chateaux in the Loire.

..

Posted by
8865 posts

I agree with Roberto. Take London, Paris & Amsterdam and choose 2 of the 3 cities. Nine days seems like a long time, but it really isn't. It's better to spend a few days to see a city, than to constantly be in transit from one city to the next. Not only does that waste time, but it also costs more money. I would start in London and spend 4 nights there. Take the Eurostar to Paris and spend 5 nights there. Fly home from there.

Posted by
3655 posts

Travel from anywhere to anywhere always seems to take longer than anticipated. With that thought in mind, and not wanting to lose anymore "in between time" than necessary, my advice would be to concentrate on only two cities. Three at the very most!! With your limited time, perhaps London and Paris would be your best bet. But the particular cities is your call depending on your own interest. I've always thought quality time in a few places is better than a brief glance at a lot of cities. TC