Eliminating redundant sights?

There is nothing at all "redundant" about the British museum. There is nothing else like it anywhere. (Where else are you going to see the Rosetta Stone, the Elgin Marbles, and so much more?)

You haven't cited any redundant sites. The British Museum is the British Museum,, it is not the Louvre, it is not like the Louvre,, same for all the sites You may need to eliminate some sites just so you are not so busy, but eliminate them based on what they are, in other words, the Orsay is filled with works done 19th century to date, the Louvre is pre 19th century works.. does one era interest you more then others( personally I do not care for the Impressionists like some do, so I don't always see the Orsay, but the Louvre has more variety of exhibits,, so if I had to choose between the two I would visit the Louvre. I would eliminate Sacre Coeur, it is further out then most sites, and it actually looks better from a distance then from inside. I also schedule my time so that I don't have eliminate much,, I spend minimally 5-7 days in any large city,, can't see much in two days. I would elimanate seeing alot of cities for 2 days and see fewer cities for more time, I recall from some of your posts you seem to have a lot you want to see.

Fraulein: Well, you have really made me laugh this time! Suggesting that you needn't see St. Paul's in London if you will see Sacre Coeur in Paris, and if you see Buckingham Palace why see Versailles? History, my dear, history. Educate yourself on the history of each and you will understand why each is UNIQUE and has nothing to do with the other. I am beyond flabbergasted.

I don't think that "redundant" is the right word, and it seems to have pushed a few buttons here, but there is such a thing as getting over-saturated with too much of a good thing. The problem can kick in if one takes a purely top-down approach to trip planning: What are the Most Important places to visit in Europe? (They are all cities.) What are the Most Important sites to see there? (Museums and churches, for the most part.) Better to mix things up and add variety even if that leaves some things for the next trip.

wow, well uh none of the things you listed are remotely alike? this doesn't mean you shouldn't eliminate them, but there's no 'redundancy here'. i think this applies in some cases to some travel - god knows, i will never feel the need to go out of my way to visit a half-timbered german town once i move from here every again - but you're talking about major sites that are all very different from each other. i second what others have said, read some history in preparation for your trip. i don't understand what people can get from these sites without an understanding of their historical significance, to be honest. or why they'd even want to see them in the first place.

Crazy talk. Why bother going to Europe at all? I mean , if you've been to Canada or Mexico, aren't all those European countries just redundant?

wow. i'm talking about common characteristics. the british museum has antiquities from ancient egypt, greece, etc. and so does the louvre. OBVIOUSLY each of them have stuff that are unique to them. but if that's the logic you're using, nothing in this world is redundanct, because everything is objectively different, no matter how slighly. and what seems hugely different to you, might seem slightly different to me. it's a matter of perspective. how arrogant can some of you be that you are incapable of even considering that people have different levels of knowledge, different priorities and different views and ideas about things? obviously the louvre is much more than just antiquities, but for a person that goes to the british museum to see antiquities, can't the louvre satisfy that need just fine? for someone who isn't an art expert, seeing paintings in the louvre and in the orsay couldn't maybe be enough and make the national gallery redudanct? this is what i asked. even if "redundanct" isn't the most appropriated word, i don't know how can you (with the exception of adam) not understand something so simple. st. paul's and the sacre coeur was just an example of churches with slightly similar architeture. probably a dumb example. i'm not entering either of them, i'm just going near the sacre coeur for a night view. i could mention a bunch of churches throughout europe as redundanct, but since i was talking about london and paris... anyway, thanks for your time.

And Fraulein,, my point was( which you chose to ignore) is yes, there are differences and you should decide WHICH differences matter most to you. No one can suggest which ones to eliminate because as you state,, everyone has different tastes. I pointed on one clear difference between the Orsay and the Louvre, its up to you to decide which of the two interest you more and then in interest of having to cut some things out of your schedule eliminate the one the least appeals to your interests( and yes, i agree both are interesting, but one always leans one way or the other) Nothing is redundant, and everything is different, has different history behind it etc,, but not will be all equally interesting to every person.

And Fraulein,, I remember you have a jam packed itinerary and I would suggest that you consider eliminating one city,, simply because then you will have more time to enjoy the cities you do visit. You are young, you'll get back to Europe again one day.

Fraulein Wunder is most likely a troll. That is the name of a famous-ish German pop group formed by 4 girls. Somebody is creating an excessive number of absurd or over ironic topics under this "Fraulein Wunder" name. This is the 6th this month only. He/She is not serious in most if all likelihood and should be just ignored.

Yes, I agree. It cannot be anything but troll-ism that brings to this board such nonsensical stuff! In the last thread started by this Wunderbar Fraulein one of her worries was about how to carry two carnets of metro tickets when she learned they were (horrors!) 20 separate tickets, not 2 little booklets of tickets. I suggest we treat her as a troll until proved otherwise.

you won't be needing to treat me as anything because this is my last post here. rejoice. the post was not directed to you pat. thank you for your good advice in this and my other topics.

I think I read a previous post where she explained her choice of name and that she is from Brazil and this is her first trip. She was attacked on that post too. If her story is true it is sad that she cannot share her excitement and questions with people on this board. I have no reason to think her questions are anything other than earnest and I hope she has a wonderful time on her first trip.

I and others have helped Fraulein on her other questions, such as Lauterbrunnen. Her choice of the word redundant may be I'll-advised, but her intent and her trip are genuine. You people have been reminded several times by the WM not to use the T word. You were unkind to this person who may not be a native English speaker, she is giving a lot of thought to her trip to Europe, and you have driven her away. Not good.

I know what you mean. In Verona, I considered skipping the Ampitheter - after all we were going to see the Coliseum in Rome in a couple of weeks, shouldn't we focus on other things? I'm really glad we decided to see the Ampitheater. It's the third largest and still in working order. The Colliseum in Rome is completely different because it's such a ruin, really a completely different site. I think it's easy to get museumed, or churched, out, which is why I don't usually plan trips that hit all the big cities in Europe in the same trip. As I go, we'll often skip sights we're less interested in because we're more looking forward to a similar sight later in the trip. One of the best things to do is review your itinerary beforehand and put stars (or smiley faces) next to your must sees - then make sure you aren't completely burned out on that type of sight before you get there. Or at least, if you are a little burned out, you will remember it was one that you really wanted to see.

I think eliminating redundancies (I understand that word) is an excellent idea. I've seen Herrenchiemsee, no reason to see Versailles. I've seen Köln Cathedral, Ulm Münster, and Frauenkirche. No reason to see Sacre Coeur. I've seen the Deutsches Museum. Why bother with the Louvre. Champs Elysees and the Eiffel Tower are unique to Paris. But I've been there, done that. No reason to go back to Paris.

The problem isn't so much about two sights being too similar (particularly since very few sights really are that similar when seen intelligently) but rather too many big cities on the same trip. You could spend a month in France and see 100+ sites and no two would be similar enough to worry about wasting your time. But go to a dozen of Europe's biggest cities all on the same trip and yes, I could envision having that worry - however misguided it might be. I wish that more people took smaller (and more balanced) bites of Europe at one time. But that is not for me to decide...

Instead of eliminating sights based on similarity I would just rush through them really fast so you can say you saw it. Besides, if you've seen one Michelangelo you've seen them all.

Looking at her other posts, it seems Fraulein is moving around pretty fast to see a lot. I think she has realized she is covering too much and thinking of skipping one city, maybe London. It really is hard to make these choices, especially if one has never been there. Anyone reading this board will read about lots of great things to see and it is only natural to want to see it all. All the so-called must-sees. But of course one ends up moving too fast and actually seeing very little. I thinkmFraulein has realized that and asked for help in deciding what to cut. You people are being way too hard on her

My thoughts: I would not remove London from your trip. London and Paris are 2 excellent cities to see on the same trip, but plan wisely, based on your interests. In London, Westminster Abbey is a must see, for amazing Gothic architecture and historical significance.
St. Paul's is magnificent, but you could skip it on first trip, You will undoubtedly see the dome and exterior of it traveling around town. It is a lovely sight on the skyline. In Paris, you must see Notre Dame, another Gothic cathedral, but very different - not redundant, you won't be bored by it. I thought Sacre Coeur was nice inside, but it is more interesting viewed from afar. You can get a good view of it from the windows of the D'Orsay museum, which I highly recommend. As for museums in each city -- read about them, determine what type or art or objects they have that most interest you. I'm sure you will want to see more than one, but you don't have to go to them all. I have been inside Buckingham Palace and Versailles, and while I would give the edge to Versailles --they are very different in architecture and history. I loved being inside Buckingham. It's not open all year and they manage the crowds due to timing of the tickets -- so it is not as much of a madhouse as Versailles can be. But the grounds, queen's hamlet, Trianons of Versailles are unique and must sees --no matter how many other castles you visit.

I also don't think Fraulein is a "troll", I have encountered many people with similiar attitudes to hers. That said, based on the way she sometimes responds I think she could stand to be a little more polite, but at the same time, people were calling her a troll from the beginning for no reason whatsoever other than her name. It was pretty rude from the beginning. I agree that eliminating a city from her trip may be a good idea, and I agree that some things can be redundant on a trip, for instance to me the idea of doing the Romantic road and stopping at several German villages all with walls and fachwerk buildings sounds VERY redundant, if all done in a short time in one trip. But for people who like those, it's fantastic. But the stuff Fraulein mentioned are very different and not redundant. I think there are good reasons for her not doing London, but it isn't "redundancy". Also I'd think Lee's post was a troll if he wasn't a regular and I wasn't familiar with his interests. But he's not a troll. People just have...different tastes. I would still recommend Fraulein, if you're still reading, that you skip the Orsay and maybe even the Lourve, no matter what you do with London. You've said before you have no interest in art. Why bother then? There is so much to do and enjoy in Paris, you don't HAVE to do something just because it's famous. I've been to Berlin 3 times and never seen the Reichtag dome or gone to the top of the TV tower, and those are the two most iconic landmarks of the city. I've been to Paris 3 times and never gone up the Eiffel tower, seeing it from the base was fine for me. Do what you want to do and what interests you!

Yes Fraulein. I understand your question. It is a good question. A person can not go to all the places in Europe and Britain that some people liked.

For your trip, in the number of days that you will be at Europe, deciding to go in only one palace, and only one art gallery, may be a good decision. In my reply to you, in your other discussion thread, about your travel itinerary, I suggested that you plan to travel to a total of three countries, not four countries.

Fraulein, my two cents is that the British Museum and the Louve are really extremely different. the British Museum is one of my all time favorite museums. I really feel there is NO other museum that compares! I also wonder why you don't intend to go inside the great churches? People of all faiths (or lack of faiths) do. The churches played a huge part in the history of Europe, and I would say I almost always find the inside much more fascinating than the outside. Westminster Abbey is particularly fascinating on the inside, and really should not be missed! I do hope you have a wonderful trip no matter what you decide!

I think folks have been too tough on Fräulein. I understand her point of view: limited time, what to fit in, don't want to overdo anything. As a young man, first time in Europe, my buddy and I arrived in Florence after five weeks with travel fatigue, though we didn't know what that was. We spent time blissfully in cafes on piazzas, willfully ignoring the Uffizi because the thought of yet another museum made us puke. We did visit David at the urging of some local girls. I recall Florence fondly and hope to tour the Uffizi some day, but it won't kill me if that doesn't happen. Fräulein, my advice is to do what works for you and ignore other people's opinions.

It all boils down to setting priorities based on one's interests, whether you want to see the TV dome at Alexanderplatz (which isn't all that thrilling) or the Reichstag's Dome (which is well worth it) or Versailles or Fontainebleau (utterly fantastic) or Herrenchiemsee or Schönbrunn, (fascinating), or whether the city to be dropped is Munich, Hamburg, Paris, Prague, Rome, Berlin, Dresden, or Wien. One needs to ask, "what do I desperately want to see or visit?" My first time to Europe for 12 weeks I skipped Paris, Versailles, and Frankfurt, saved them for the next trip. @Fraulein, stick to your interests and prioritize.

I would eliminate a city rather than the sights. Last year we visited 6 countries and I never got tired of seeing cathedrals and churches in each, nor visiting their museums. Each was different and no two cathedrals or castles were alike. I am going to Tivoli gardens this year, but certainly don't think that because I've been to Disneyland/world, that this is a good enough reason to avoid and describe it as redundant.