Micro trip/first time Europe

How about Vienna?

In my opinion, having visited many times Amsterdam and living and working not far from London, I would say that Amsterdam is much more of a culture shock than London. The trams and bicycles any time you are trying to cross a street, the canals, and the cobblestones take quite a lot of getting used to.

That said, as this is your first post, we know nothing about either you or him, what you like, what you don't, why you think that London is too intense, any mobility issues or difficulties.

If you tell us more about you we can give you a far better focused answer.

Sorry but the best museums are in London, Rome, Florence and Paris. London is really easy to get to and around in and easy to take a daytrip to other places.

Almost-a-week in London is a good start! You can see a lot in 5 or 6 days, but you won't see everything. There is little in the way of a language barrier. :-) It's expensive, but it will whet his appetite for more!

twinzmawm, How much short of a week? 6 nights, 5, 4?

If you have enough nights, I suggest a 2-city trip, fly into London and out of Paris (open jaw), with a Eurostar train in between.
London is relatively low impact (language mostly the same, but still expect some degree of foreignness), which will ease you into Paris.
And in both you will have a surfeit of walking possibilities and museums.

If you want even lower impact and smaller places, you could do Edinburgh, with an overnighter to York in the middle (~2 hours by train).

Belgium. English spoken almost everywhere, easy to daytrip from one base city.

Waffles, beer, chocolate.

London's not intense, just expensive. Public transport is frankly not great.

If you like 20th c history, go Berlin. Cheap, relatively laid back, still definitely NOT America.

Like older European history? Amsterdam. Middling expensive, not crazy. SOOOOO picturesque, you'll definitely know you're in Europe 24/7.

Vienna could be cool, esp. if you like fin de siecle, WWI , interwar history. I'm headed there for the first time in two weeks.

Paris? Gorgeous, special, historic.

Want something fairytale-cool? Stockholm.

English is widely spoken in all of these cities with little to no attitude (Paris is the only place where I got any attitude, when two teenage girls at a coffee shop mocked my pronunciation of "croissant." The rest are cool. In Sweden and the Netherlands, their attitude is a perfectly nonjudgmental, 'Why should you speak [our language]? You aren't [our nationality.]" I always learn a few basic phrases and please and thank you, of course, because it's the polite thing to do and people do appreciate that you put the effort in.

If you love art & museums, as I do, any of those offers lots of treats. For that matter, the Tate Britain has some of the cleverest, smartest, wittiest installations I've ever experienced. Kudos to their curatorial staff. But it's London...

Last thing I want to add... let no one give you a hard time about "micro" trips not being worth your time. Due to work, family, and other obligations, the only trips I'm able to take are "micro" trips, clocking in under a week, door-to-door. I visit the heck out of just one city at a time and I have such a good time doing it. As a working single mom yadda yadda this is my one big treat to myself each year, and it's worth it.

I think Edinburgh would be a perfect trip for what you're describing. That might be enough to hook him. But that also could spoil him as some other cities he might be disappointed in afterwards. It just all depends on what you're looking for

I agree that if you think London will be too intense, then try Belgium. Easy to fly into Brussels, then stay there or pick another city and day trip. Easy short train rides between Brussels, Bruges, Gent, Antwerp, etc. Lots of variety, museums, scenic places, etc. Plenty to keep you busy for 4-6 days.

I heartily suggest these cities for the first timer spending less than a week...maybe five full days?....London, Vienna, and Berlin. London and Vienna are easy to navigate and get around using a combination of trams and the U-Bahn, or buses and the Tube. It never occurred to me that London could be intense, crowded yes.

I can't imagine Belgium as a first trip to Europe. Not the same quality of places to visit as the other cities mentioned.

Depending on time of year, how about Venice? Or Munich? Maybe avoid times when these locations are inundated with tourists... Or start in one, take the train to the other and fly out from there. Not a difficult trip and offers potential for a variety of experiences, scenery, museums, and day trips to other cities. Munich, especially, has great public transportation. Wish I were there - later this fall.

Debbie

Munich and Salzburg.

What time of year would the trip be?

Belgium wouldn't be my first (or second) choice.

London may have expensive accommodation (so does Amsterdam) but most of the museums and galleries are free. No language issues and good all year round.

Berlin is one of my favourite European cities and good all year round. Fascinating modern history and a good vibe with great value accommodation.

Paris and a day trip to Versailles if you are there for at least 5 days, otherwise, stick to the city centre.

Venice but only in the shoulder season, otherwise far too busy. I was there in January just before Carnivale and many restaurants were closed. Makes London look a bargain.

Not quite in the same league, but I am throwing in some different suggestions to those already stated - Seville and Jerez in Spain for history and sherry! Lisbon and Porto in Portugal for a similar mix (port not sherry, of course) or Budapest - enough to keep you occupied for 5 days. Iceland - there's nowhere quite like it. But expensive.

Dublin is good for a weekend but it doesn't have the same number of attractions as some other places. It's also expensive.

We could be more specific with our advice or suggestion if we know where you live (big city versus rural and then location - which cities in Europe you have direct connection - with micro trip is very important not to spend too much time on your way). If you go in summer and live close to the city which has direct connection to Reykjavik you could consider Iceland - as it was already suggested. Advantages: the shortest time spent on the way, not intense at all. Minuses: not too many museums, most people have different image of Europe, not the best weather, expensive. London - advantages: direct connection from most places in US. They speak similar language as we do. Many museums. Good city for walking. Good public transport. Minuses: expensive. Paris - advantages: still relatively easy to get to. World class museums. Good for walks. Good public transport. Fulfill classic image of Europe for most people. Minuses: pickpockets, attitudes of some people. Rome - advantages: still relatively easy to get from most places in US. Classic ancient city, many museums, many nice walks, good public transport. Minuses: very intense, oppressively hot in summer, pickpockets.
Berlin - advantages: many museums, a lot of recent history, relatively cheaper, very good public transport. Minuses: sights far apart, architectonically mishmash of old and very modern, few direct connection from US. Prague - advantages: absolute eye candy, beautiful architecture, relatively cheaper, created for walking, three medieval neighborhoods, excellent and cheap beer. Very good public transport. Minuses: direct flights from only two cities in US. Crowded at certain sights and certain times. Enough museums but lack of world class museums. Pickpockets. Budapest - advantages: eye candy, beautiful views across the river, nice for walking, very good public transport, thermal baths all over, little bit feeling of Oriental fragrance about the city like some kind of exotics (Budapest was occupied over hundred years by Ottoman Empire). Cheap comparing to other cities. Minuses: Only one direct flight from US. Little gritty in certain neighborhoods (but safe). Conclusion: number one - London, number two Paris and I threw in few more cities to consider and my impressions of them.

That is an excellent summary of cities. Thank you for that even though I'm not the OP

I would consider Vienna with maybe a side trip to Salzburg and a day trip out to Schoenbrun. Museums, cafe culture, cute center, palaces, opera if you're into that, royal tombs, churches. Culture both cosmopolitan and not to terribly foreign, but you are definitely not at home.

Schoenbrunn is in Vienna. You don't need a day trip there. Just jump on subway, few stops and you are there.

If you don't want to do London (and I don't understand why not, frankly) I think the German suggestions are good. Perhaps not Berlin - it's my favorite city but it's a little bit edgy and not as "European" as it's so international (which is why I like it).

Vienna would be a great choice, as would Munich (and day trips to Berchesgaden/Salzburg etc). Everyone speaks English quite well, it's not as much as a bit world class city like London.

Dublin isn't a bad option but I found it a bit dull (don't kill me). I don't think he'd feel overwhelmed there, that's for sure.

I've not yet been to Edinburgh (working on it!) but from everything I know it might be a blend between the crowds of London and the laid-back feel of Dublin. I love Amsterdam but it's "intense" in a way too, like London.

Honestly German-speaking places are good for a bit of "Europe" without the headaches that you find in the rest of Europe.

As you can see, everyone has different impressions of various places in Europe, and so is making recommendations based on that. There's no clear winner - just what works best for you.

I agree that time of year is important, as is your origin city, and something more complex - what says "Europe" to you? And yes, if you can say why you don't want London, that will help focus responses on what might be better for your particular tastes.

I'll complicate things by adding one more city idea - Barcelona.

Laid back? Vienna might fit that bill. It is just super lovely with world-class museums, compact inner city for walking, trams and subways to take you further, palaces with sumptuous jewels, open markets, cafés to read & relax, and world-class music. You can also go for walks in the Vienna woods and take boats along the Danube. I love Vienna. If you speak some German, that would be great. If not, most speak English.

To me, a "micro trip" overseas is a long weekend and we've done that when there isn't the time nor the budget for longer trips. When you can fly directly from the US, it's a breeze to go to Europe even for a few days.

For the "European" aspect of Berlin, if one accepts such a thing, go to the eastern areas. On this trip I went back to Köpenick, transferred at Ostkreuz. I had not been to Köpenick since 1999. That and Berlin-Karlshorst, Jannowitzbrücke and Berlin-Alexanderplatz are eastern areas worthy of your time.

I loved Alexanderplatz. It felt like a time warp back to the 80s. Also found the best bratwurst there--little stall run by a Turkish guy, just where you come in off Karl-Liebknechtstrasse. On the "outside" of the plaza, before the covered area.

I have thought about your question, and would recommend any one of the following three options:

London...busy and expensive, but probably what most US and CA people think about first when going to Europe. It's like NYC, but more polite and with all the English history. If you can handle that, you will not regret visiting London.

Haarlem.... near Amsterdam. There's a good reason RS starts his Europe tour here. It's a small version of Amsterdam, but without all the crowds. Easy to explore and a quick train ride into Amsterdam. There is direct bus service from Schipol airport to here. The hotels are much cheaper than in Amsterdam.

Berlin...It's an international city now and very easy going, no one expects you to speak German. You can take a day trip to another city if you like; I think Dresden is two hours by train. Berlin is also your best value for money in Western Europe.

I hope this helps :-)

Continental has good logic for Vienna and I'll second it. It feels very "European" yet it's got the Germanic efficiency with regards to clean nice hotel rooms, good public transit, everyone speaks English (nearly everyone), and the museums and palaces are fantastic. Plus good wine that no one knows about (Austrian wine is fantastic! Pretty good beer, too.) I think Vienna is one of the underrated cities in Europe, yet I know plenty who could take it or leave it. It's so individual!

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful and inspiring answers! Great suggestions I hadn't considered or, had further down The List.

We're looking at fall, I need to use up last small chunk of vacation time 'or lose it'. (Thus last minute planning for 'micro trip'.)
To answer someone else's questions: we are both from large cities now live in VT...travel extensively throughout USA/Canada. We enjoy cities for walking, architecture, art museums, hiking/biking opportunities. We have alot of departure airport options (Hartford CT, Boston, NYC,).
"Intensity"? We need kinda low key at this time for personal reasons, thus not doing Europe during summer. Our big vacation this year is next month north into rural Canada; but looking forward to ramping it up a bit for a visit to Europe.
Thanks everyone!

In response to Lija: re Schoenbrunn, I think it as a day trip because doing the fullness of it (the palace the gardens, the strudel show (do that) the carriage museum, et al) is pretty much 75% of a day, if not more. You are correct that it is easily accessible and not terribly far.

Yeah I'm going to second my recommendation for Vienna with your additional information. It's easy, it's charming, it's beautiful, it's European. If you want something low-key you won't be bored with 5 days there, IMO. The museums are really top-notch. Do a little reading into the Hapsburgs/Holy Roman Empire/WWI for the historical sites to have more resonance. The military museum literally has car that Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo, as well as his uniform he was wearing at the time. Pretty much all of Western 20th century history stems from that one moment. It's quite sobering and fascinating to see in person.

after you pick your city look up the average temperature on wikipedia and pack accordingly. I always being a Dickies thermal hoodie. it's a great 3 season coat. blankie. pillow and room darkener when worn over my face. I also bring a windbreaker.

If you like walking in cities and art museums and good food, it's Florence hands down. The main tourist sights are concentrated in a small area unlike London and Rome and Paris.

I think your first thought is probably more from your gut and, thus, correct. It offers all that you say you like. It is a charming little city in a lovely country. Amsterdam was my husbands first city in Europe. He's a cyclist, among other things, and he loved it. And I would debate that it does not have world class art museums...think Riyksmuseum and lovely smaller ones. I am actually returning to Amsterdam in March after too many years away for 7 full days of museums, photography, pancakes... Also, there will be no language issue, simple transport options from airport to city center, and lovely people.

For a micro trip especially , I would book closer than farther... even an extra hour or two flying can add to exhaustion and you want to be up and running on a short trip, so I would look at what flight times you have from where you live.

I would think London, Edinburgh or Dublin would be good choices.. closer, and no language issues.

After reading through all the suggestions, I go back to your original ideas. I can't speak to Edinburgh, but Dublin has enough to keep you engaged for 5-6 days. I'd describe it as a mini-London, low-key and a lot more fun. Everyone I me was friendly and chatty, there are two cathedrals, a top-notch archaeology museum (free), several other interesting museums and other sights, and exploring the pubs is fun, each is a warren of rooms, many going back centuries, and lots of live music. If the weather's good, you could take a day trip to the coast. There are gardens, parks, and 2 fine theatres. And it's a shorter flight than other destinations and a cheaper stay. Amsterdam is more intense, but it's unique, with great museums and churches, a rich history, and after a couple of Heinekens, you'll feel right at home renting bikes and getting around like the locals. There are a half-dozen good day trips, but there's so much to see and do in the city, you may never find the time.

To tell the truth, I don't understand your strategy (i.e., looking for a trip that's not "intense"--actually, a short trip to my way of thinking is far more "intense" than a longer, more leisurely trip). Besides, any city or country can be "intense" in its own way, and choosing one based on the idea that it's not "intense" may lead to a boring adventure.

Here was my strategy when I began traveling to Europe. I went to my favorite destination first (Italy, mostly in Rome), then my second favorite (France, mostly in Paris), then my third favorite (England, mostly in London). Then I went to Egypt and then Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland--I know, I know, Finland is not really part of Scandinavia) and most recently, Cuba (which is not in Europe, obviously, but it ended up on my list of places I wanted to go outside the United States).

My reasoning was that if my financial circumstances changed or my health changed, I wanted to make sure that I first went to the places that most intrigued me most. And I'm a single female who travels alone (usually with tour groups). But I went to Europe by myself for a conference one time. And on my very first trip to Europe, I unexpectedly (due to bad weather and cancelled flights) ended up traveling not with the tour group as I had expected but by myself from the United States to Munich (where I had a connecting flight), and finally to my destination of Rome, where there was a taxi strike, so I had to take a rogue taxi by myself to the hotel. But I made it, and having to do it all on my own gave me confidence in myself.

You're looking for a gentle way to introduce your husband to Europe? I'm sorry, but travel to any destination can be rigorous (even within the United States post 9/11). Just the flight overseas is rigorous to my way of thinking, and arriving jet lagged is a challenge (another reason that short trips are more "intense" than longer trips--you don't have any time to adjust to the new time zone).

Each place had its own challenges: Rome for pickpockets, Paris for the locals who expected my French to be perfect, London for the bombings of the buses and subways while I was already en route, and so forth and so on.

Why don't you just ask your husband where he's always wanted to go? That way, you'll know that he'll have experiences he'll cherish, and he'll want to seek out other destinations with you in the future.

Stick to your initial impulse and decide between Amsterdam, Edinburgh or Dublin. For the time you have, needing something low key and introducing a newbie to Europe, all of them will work well. And they all have enough options in terms of your interests in museums, architecture, walking, etc. I'm always up for spending a huge amount of my time in museums and just because a smaller city may not have something as vast as the Louvre doesn't mean there's not dozens of other smaller museums and galleries that are just as interesting. To say Amsterdam can't compete with the museums of London, Rome or Paris is laughable. It took me 3 separate visits to the Rijks to see it all.

Something else to consider on a very short trip is the time and ease of getting to or from the airport nearest your home. I've flown from all the locations available to you, and given you are in VT, Bradley is a very easy airport to use and far less of a hassle than dealing with Logan or the NYC/Newark airports. Bradley has been running some good airfare sales as well to promote their routes to Dublin and Edinburgh. KLM often has some decent fares from Logan.

I hate to disagree but after traveling to countless European cities, and much of the big ones more than once (London, Paris, Amsterdam, Vienna, Budapest, Berlin, Munich) I would not chose Dublin, personally, for this trip. It's the city in Europe I've been most disappointed in. It was just...kind of dull. Maybe it was the season (a very cold March) or the lack of indoor activities that weren't tourist monstrosities like the Guinness Brewery (shoot me, it's an overrated beer and I just don't care) but I found nothing to love about Dublin. It barely seemed like a city to me. I don't know how you'd kill 5 days there (although my in-laws did, happily - different strokes I guess?)

I haven't been to Edinburgh but by all accounts it could fit the bill. Amsterdam certainly would - a week there is paradise even in shit weather. But Dublin? I just don't understand it's supposed charms. After seeing the Book of Kells and the bog men it was like...what now? A pub, I guess.

Maybe I'm missing something but Dublin just didn't do it for me. A day or two, fine, but not more than that.

Agree Guinness Storehouse is an overrated tourist trap, just like I cringe when people recommend the Heineken Experience in Amsterdam. I also roll my eyes when there are recommends for people to head to Temple Bar in Dublin to hear traditional Irish music. I guess if your definition of trad includes an Irish guy singing John Denver covers, then it's great. But I suggest if you choose Dublin you invest a little time to research alternatives to these things and when you look for places to eat or drink a few pints, get out of the tourist zones because if you don't, you'll be writing it off as a third rate European city, which it's not. And no hard and fast rule says you need to spend a full 5 days in any of these cities. I would definitely encourage at least 1 day trip outside of city boundaries so you get a different perspective. Just like Paris is not 100% representative of France, neither is Dublin, Edinburgh or Amsterdam 100% representative of their countries.

I find Amsterdam to be much more intense than London. In full disclosure London is my favorite European city. All of the other cities you have listed wouldn't have enough to keep me interested for a week. I do like the other posters suggestions of Munich / Salzburg or Vienna / Salzburg. You could even add Hallstatt into either of those.

Ceidleh - Totally agree that Ireland is not Dublin. Just that OP seemed to want to have one city to focus on and in my mind Dublin is a poor choice because there's just not that much to do.

If OP said 2 nights Dublin PLUS 5 nights elsewhere I'd say right on, but she seems to be looking for one city location. I think Dublin is a poor choice in that case.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and suggestions! This is Explorer Twinzmawm, who posed the initial blog question.
We booked...a stunning apartment in New Town section of Edinburgh...for a few days with a little time to go exploring elsewhere in UK before heading home.

Took someone's advice to use Bradley airport for a direct flight.

This will be a good first trip overseas for hubby.

He liked the Vienna suggestions. We are already looking into that for next trip in spring.
Thanks everyone!
: )