11 cities in 32 days? (Itinerary question)

I count 13 destinations in 31 days (or nights ??).
For a journey of a month I would aim for average stay of 3 nights, making for 10 or 11 destinations all up.

Fly in to Venice (3)
Fly to Prague (4)
Hallstatt (2)
Munich (4) with excursion to Neuschwanstein
Rothenburg (2)
Koblenz (3) with excursion to Trier
Colmar (2)
Paris (4)
Haarlem (3)
(Fly Amsterdam to Zurich)
Lauterbrunnen (4)
Fly out of Zurich

Bookend your trip with 'fly in, fly out' visits to Venice and Switzerland.
From Prague to Hallstatt is a long day by train - squeezing in a Vienna stop would neatly break it in two.

You have a nice chunk of time to work with and certainly you can do a few 2 night stays, but you've got a lot of them. A 2 night stay is really a one day visit. And packing, transiting, finding the new lodging and unpacking takes way more time than you'd ever realize.

You haven't mapped out your routing and your transport mode for us but I think you're moving around a lot. 32 nights? I'd do maybe 9 stops...you've got 13 there.

Thanks for the replies so far! I'm not sure where I got 11 cities... How embarrassing. Yes it's 13. I was counting them as days, not as nights, but I should be counting nights instead shouldn't I? Like you said, 2 nights = only 1 full day.

We'll be doing mainly train (possibly some flights if they're price comparable). No route mapped yet, I'm waiting till we iron down destinations. Or is that backwards?

At any rate I can see the consensus so far is I should slim the list down at least a few cities...

It's great that you have so much time for this trip. Have you taken a trip this long before?

A big pitfall of a long trip is if afterwords everything sort of runs together. With your emphasis on cities and your constant pace, I'd be worried about that for this itinerary.

There's nothing wrong with cramming a lot in, but for a long trip you have the opportunity to vary the pace. You have, for instance, the opportunity to hunker down in one place for a week of local sightseeing and day trips. Pick the right place and do this in the middle of your trip and you will reflect and organize your memories and recharge.

Those 2-night stops are going to run together if you do too much of them.

That's my only concern. Have a great time!

Adam, no this is our first of this length! I love your idea of settling down somewhere in the middle... Like RS says, a vacation within the vacation. It is hard to eliminate destinations but I know that I will remember more if we move around less.

It helps that you are visiting a lot of smaller places, so I don't get the "But they're just scratching the surface!" reaction. But I think that's a lot of hotel shifts, and keeping up that pace for 4-1/2 weeks will not be easy. What you need is some pairs or clusters of places you can visit from one central city. That way, you'd get to as many destinations but with fewer hotel changes.

I'd suggest cutting Pula as a first step. There are many, many interesting places in Croatia, a number of them on the Istrian Peninsula. So keep Pula for your next trip when you have time to do the area justice.

Then I'd think about Hallstatt. I assume this will be a driving vacation; if not, Hallstatt is even more of a question mark. There are beautiful lakes scattered all over Europe. Try to find one (perhaps near Munich or in Switzerland) that could be your lake fix on this trip and would be a suitable day-trip from one of your existing base cities.

Then there's Rothenburg. I believe our Germany experts can suggest other similarly pretty (but somewhat less touristy) towns with medieval architecture that are located closer to your other German destinations.

Edit: I've just seen your follow-up post in which you indicated you plan to depend on public transportation. I do that myself, so I'm certainly not pushing you to rent a car. But you need to figure out how much time it will take you to move from place to place. Figure out a rough order for your destinations and plug each pair into Rome2Rio.com to get an idea of travel time. You are going to get some unpleasant surprises, I'm afraid. There are places that may be only 2-1/2 or 3 hours apart by car but will require 5 or 6 hours by bus or train. That's what often happens when you move between two small cities. For precise train schedules, use the Deutsche Bahn website, but Rome2Rio.com is useful because it at least attempts to include buses as well.

The reason to count nights instead of days is that a day can be a couple of hours of sightseeing time, or 12+ hours. Nights are more constant.

My first question is whether you feel that this will be your only trip to Europe. If you could plan a second trip in a few years, this trip could be centered in a few countries which would give you less train or flight time and much more enjoyment time. We travel for almost 3 weeks for our trips, and I aim for train time between locations to be no more than 3 hours. This allows you to be at the next destination by noon. We like stops to be 3 days with a few 2 days. For 3 days or more, you will really remember those locations and enjoy feeling like you know the town much better.

The Lauterbrunnen area is absolutely breath-taking. You will waste 3/4 of a day just getting there and back out again, so don't reduce the nights planned for that one.

I hate to suggest an additional town, but you're going right by Salzburg on the Munich/Hallstatt route. Salzburg is charming - could easy spend another 3 days there.

When I'm starting to plan a trip, I draw on a large paper each city name approximately where it would be located on a map. Then I connect the multiple lines between locations & write the train hours (easy to check on rome2rio.com). It's a good visual to see which route is the optimal one and also how many extra hours you would spend just to see a specific town. It helps weed out the ones that aren't worth the extra hours. You've wisely given yourself time to plan your trip, so you'll have time to consider, add & delete locations and come up with the trip that's most meaningful for you.

I agree with other responders who have suggested that less can be more. The issue isn't that you'll be rushed. I've done trips with about a 1:3 ratio of locations to nights, and it isn't particularly rushed. The issue is that it's exhausting, particularly when you're traveling independently, because unlike on a guided tour, you have to get yourself not just to each city, but between each hotel and each bus or train station or airport, and that consumes time and requires schlepping baggage. Also, unlike a trip where you are getting a deep dive into one geographic area, you are spreading out all over much of Europe. By the time you get to the end of your trip, all the earlier destinations will be a vague blur.

So four options I'd consider for 32 days:

1. Focus on one part of Europe, say eastern or northern or the alpine region.
2. Cut back to under ten destinations.
3. Cut all the way back to four destinations that are central and from which you can take lots of day trips to explore.
4. Some combination of all of the above.

I'm sure you'll have a great trip whatever you decide, but when you get home, you'll have much more joyful memories if you haven't spent so much of your trip getting from place to place.

I actually like using bahn.de (https://www.bahn.de/p_en/view/index.shtml) to look at train times rather than rome2rio.com. Just a personal preference.

I'm so envious you get to spend 32 days in Europe - you will have a great time!! I do think, however, that you have way too many short stays. I agree, a minimum of 3 nights is best, especially if you have long travel days between destinations. I really like Jean's idea of writing out all of your destinations on a piece of paper - it will give you a great feel for how much time you actually have in each spot.

Have a great time planning - it's almost as much fun as the trip itself!

Thank you all for the helpful replies!

acraven, I think you are right about Pula. We are already hoping to someday do a return trip to really explore Italy so we'll add Croatia & Montenegro to that. Also great note about Hallstatt being difficult to reach since we won't be driving. I will find a different lake for a day trip.
I've already been using Rome2Rio quite a bit. It IS frustrating how long traveling takes by train vs by car but that will push us to whittle down our destination list.

Jean, this will likely (sadly) be our only trip to Europe within the next 25 years or so, which makes it more of a "highlight" trip than being able to just focus on one or two regions.
I'm so excited about Lauterbrunnen, I have a feeling it will be a great change of pace from big cities.
Thanks for the drawing idea! We'll definitely do that.

So, I will be cutting down to a maximum of 10 stops. Having never done a trip of this kind, it's hard for me to imagine just how exhausting traveling can be, so I really appreciate the input. Thanks again everyone!

I've been to Europe 30 to 45 days at a time four times now. The first was all England, Wales, and Scotland and we spent 2 to 3 days per city. That was in my youth and involved mostly youth hostels and more energy than I can believe I had.

Since then we've taken to doing about one short week (5 to 6 nights) per city with two or three one to two night stands tucked in between cities. We plan on doing day trips to see smaller places or stoping on the journey between places. Last trip was rushed for us but with the bounds of what we could do and still not wear ourselves out:

Amsterdam 6 nights (3 day trips)
Night Train (following morning to mid afternoon in Munich)
Salzburg 3 nights
Vienna 6 nights (1 day trip)
Cesky Krumlov 1 night (arrived at noon via private transfer a time saving splurge)
Prague 7 nights (visited Tabor in route plus 3 day trips)
Night Train (following morning in Cologne)
Paris 6 nights (1 day trip)
London 5 nights (1 day trip)

Given 32 days you might consider choosing four to six cities to stay longer in and two or three smaller places to stop overnight in or see in route. The possibilities are endless. Amsterdam, London, Paris, Venice, Rome possibly Florence. Vienna, Munich, Paris, London (choose either to begin in Venice or put Amsterdam between Paris and London or both). Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam, London (possibly Madrid). Budapest, Vienna, Prague, Munich, Paris (maybe London or Amsterdam). London, Paris, Venice, Florence, Rome. Berlin, Krakow, Budapest, Vienna, Munich.

About your destinations in Germany:
* Trier is great but if you don't have a slow day at the Mosel with lots of good wine, you are missing what the point of that location is. Aside from Roman ruins.
* Neuschwanstein is iconic but nothing more than that. It was built in 19th century because Ludwig II has read too many books about the medieval. See it as Ludwig's personal Disneyland. If you want to see an authentic German castle, you have to go elsewhere, on your route are for example Burg Hohenzollern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzollern_Castle in the central Swabian Alps, and Burg Eltz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltz_Castle and Burg Cochem https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsburg_Cochem both at the Mosel. (That said, Burg Eltz is also iconic, it was on the back of the 500 DM bill. )
* Instead of staying in Nuremberg for three days and Rothenburg o.d.T for one day I would recommend to visit Bamberg for a few days, take the train to Rothenburg early in the morning of the departure day and hop off in Nuremberg for the day. Arrive in Rothenburg in the evening when all the day tourists are gone. Take a stroll in the evening there. Next day explore it a bit until the new day tourists arrive, then flee to the nearby Feuchtwangen and Dinkelsbühl, which are equally picturesque but less crowded. Return to base in Rothenburg in the evening. Head to another location (e.g. Hechingen, Burg Hohenzollern) next day.

It's the kid-in-the-candy-store syndrome. Even after so many trips to so many places, I still deal with it often in my planning. Last year I did a 25-day trip which included an 11-night RS My Way tour and 8 days with a car. I had one (heavenly) 4-nighter and a couple 3's. I was exhausted when I got home - keep in mind that for most of the trip, I had door-to-door transportation (and I love driving). Except for the tour, I was only in 2 countries and my first and last cities were ones I'd been to before. I did have a great time but I learned my limit.

First, look at nights - that's how many times you have to pack/unpack, get to/from train stations (airports too) to hotels, get oriented to new cities/languages (signs!)/transport systems (tram, metro, bus). Nest, don't string together short stays. Lastly, remember than less is more. The fewer destinations, the more time you have to spend sightseeing, dining, people-watching comfortably without looking at a map all the time. The joy of travel is new experiences and you'll have them everywhere, no matter how long your stay is. You can't possibly see all of Europe in a lifetime . . . don't try to see it all, instead aim to enjoy all you do see.

PS - Europe's been there for a long time, it's not going away and you'll be back ☺

Chani is right, after several years of 88-day trips, I still tend to overload my itinerary. I plan to stay for a short week in each city, but somehow I end up with mostly 3-night stays (trying for at least 4 nights next time).

The tip about not stringing together too many one-nighters is very valuable.

You appear to be on the right track with regard to slimming down the original plan. You are correct in thinking " ...I know that I will remember more if we move around less." The reason that is so is because it almost always takes more time to get from Point A to Point B than anticipated. Because it's not just the actual time in route, but also the time spent leaving one hotel, waiting for trains, cabs, security if flying, getting checked in, unpacked, and etc. You want memories of places, people, things and such -- not just a blur of plane / train stations. Sounds like a great trip and I don't mean to be a downer, just food for thought.

I did a similarly paced trip some years ago- 30 days through five countries in southern Europe. I overnighted in 13 towns and cities, plus an overnight train and overnight ferry, so 15 different overnights really. A 4-night stay, two 3-nights, and the rest 2- and 1-nights.

I had a great time, didn't feel too rushed, and have fond, distinct memories of every location (no 'blur'). I was travelling solo; as a couple there is a greater chance of one person feeling unhappy with the pace, or other aspect of the trip.

I was age 27. Maybe in middle age I would do things differently, maybe not.

True, whether at 27 or 57, you can count on certain advantages when traveling solo. Pace and means of travel are among them.

It sounds as though the OP is interested in slowing down and paring back a little but is not sure how.

It's very hard for us to advise you since we can only infer your priorities. Sometimes destinations that are logistically "inefficient" (that is, they don't fit in to the itinerary very well and take a long time to get to and from) can be the most rewarding.

You seem to have a broad swath north of the Alps that ought to fit together pretty well. For out outliers, though, I would suggest asking two questions:

1. Does this destination justify the time, trouble, and expense of getting there and on the the next?
2. Am I spending enough time at this destination to justify the time, trouble, and expense of getting there?

If the answer to either is no, then it's a candidate to save for another trip. If the answer to 2 is no, it's alternatively a candidate to add a day or two.

For instance: I will observe that 3 nights in the Bernese Oberland is at best risky. If you have a day of bad weather you will only have a day for mountain sightseeing. Better than none, but I should regret coming all that way for so little. 4 nights hedges your bets better, and should the weather be stellar the whole time you get a bonus.

Venice, Prague, Pula are other places to at least think about on those terms.

You may also wish to ask if you are spending enough time visiting some of your other destinations. Haarlem is, I assume, a base from which to visit Amsterdam. Of course you can have a very full and interesting day at any of these great cities, but you will hardly exhaust them. A second full day would also be rewarding, and even a more.

You are spending a lot of money and effort to visit these fabulous places. So, do not sell yourself short by leaving too soon!

Of course, only you and yours can know where the sweet spots are. But sit down together with a map and a sense of the cost in time and euros of your transit connections. Then be brutally honest with yourselves. You'll have a better trip if you do.

Adam: Those 2 questions are going to come in handy, thank you! We need to determine if certain destinations are worth spending the time & trouble of getting there, and then figuring how much time we should spend there to make it worth it. For instance, I had my heart set on seeing the Plitvice Lakes, but without a car it would take a ridiculous amount of time to get there from Pula. It will have to wait for another trip (as likely will Pula).

Will: I appreciate your addition - we are both under 27, yet even if we can physically keep up it doesn't mean we have a high "travel endurance" so to speak. Especially me having never done this kind of thing before. That's why I'm inclined to slow the pace.

jjj: Thank you so much for your Germany suggestions! I'd forgotten about Mosel and I love your idea regarding Rothenburg. We are planning on Burg Eltz (and likely Cochem too) but I felt like I had to visit Neuschwanstein because it's such an icon.

All this advice is quite valuable, and I can't thank you all enough for taking the time to give me your two cents. :)

One thing to remember is that a lot of folks who take trips with a series of 1- and 2-night stops are on 10- to 15-day vacations. A 32-day trip is a whole 'nother beast. In my experience, if you push yourselves too much for that long without a break, your body is likely to assure that it gets a break somehow. Hello, summer cold or stomach virus!

but I felt like I had to visit Neuschwanstein because it's such an icon.

Nah, you don't have to do that. If you go there, go for the history of it. A lot of German castles have been reconstructed during the 19th century, and Ludwig thought he had to catch up. But he built a new "old" castle instead of refurbishing the nearby Hohenschwangau. The Neuschwanstein castle is sure iconic but it's really a product of Ludwig's fantasy. And it's unfinished as construction stopped right the moment when Ludwig died for budget reasons. If you go into Schwangau, make sure to visit both castles. The old Hohenschwangau castle is somewhat more authentic. Ludwig had put in some fixtures to produce a rainbow over a small waterfall so you get an impression how much that guy was into dreams. I've written that before, he's like the real-world Bavarian Don Quijote. It was so embarrassing for his mother she removed all this stuff from his room when he died three years before her.

But I think Schwangau is a bit off the track and you should visit the castles on the row from Bamberg/Nuremberg to Mosel instead. If you go to/from Switzerland from/to Munich, you could arrange your tour plan to hop off the train at Schwangau for a day visit.

Similar with Nuremberg. It has some sights (Nazi rally grounds, Courtroom 600, Castle) but it's an industrial city mostly. Most of the rally grounds is used as industrial fairgrounds. (Which is a bit odd when you go e.g. to the Embedded Systems high tech fair and park your car on 80 year old Nazi concrete, next to the grandstands.) That's why I suggested to have your base in Bamberg instead, and hit Nuremberg for a day visit on your way to Rothenburg.

I haven't been to Bamberg or Nuremberg, but I think jjj makes an important point: It's worth spending some time figuring out the best base for a day trip or two (or three). That will depend on the transportation links to places you want to go, of course. As a big fan of smaller cities that only have about a day's worth of sights, I've sometimes stayed in a city I didn't really intend to visit, just because it made a good hub for multiple day-trips. That can be OK, especially on a longer trip, as long as the city is nice for strolling in the evenings and the transportation works well. Potential base cities with bus and train stations near the historic district get bonus points, because it's a drag if it's a slog to move between your hotel and the bus or train each day.

The Lonely Planet and Rick Steves guides (for the area he covers) are very good about summarizing the bus and train possibilities from each city. One of the first things I do when planning a trip is grab the appropriate guide books from the library and check out where I can get easily from my planned destinations. Then I read about those places. I always end up uncovering interesting possibilities near some of my high-priority spots. (Bonus: They will probably be less touristy!) That reduces the territory I can cover on a single trip, but it also gives me more sightseeing time, less travel time and lower per-day cost. I make a point of still including a variety of destinations, though, in terms of culture, language, terrain, size of city, type of museum, etc.

I'm struggling to cut down on my next itinerary as well and some things I have learned from my last couple of trips......
Good logistics are key, avoid multiple forms of transportation in a day. I try to keep trains to four hours max unless you are going to burn an entire day as a travel day. I don't mind a one night stays if I have a car since you eliminate transfer times (from an airport or train station for example). I plan my longest stay for the end of my trip when I am tired of packing and unpacking. Paris is a good choice to end your trip because of international flights and you'll enjoy it more without jet lag which you will have for your first week. Amsterdam is a good place to start, everyone speaks English and lot's of comfort food.
Less is more.

Not sure how your final itinerary will end up... but if you are looking for a beautiful lake and a place to have your 'vacation within a vacation' you should look at the Lake of Konstanz (Bodensee). It is beautiful and one of my favorite places. First trip to Europe my daughter and I found it and used it as our little place to rest during a whirlwind road trip in Europe. We watched the sunrise there one morning and it is one of the best memories....

I also have to agree with a previous poster who suggested Salzburg... you are so close and unless you come back just for that it might not fit into another trip. I don't think you would regret it. There are so many amazing places, but I would try to eliminate a few that take such a long time to travel to.

If you did decide on a car for a few days, the south of Germany and the romantic road as well as Salzburg and the lake would be a nice road trip. All pretty easy driving and lots of beautiful countryside.