One Country at a Time--or Many?

If you plan well you can "do" 2 or 3 countries in reasonable depth in a 2 or 3 week trip. For example you could pair Austria and Germany or France, Belgium, and Holland. England is a natrual pair with Scotland and Wales. We have done many nice trips spread over that range of teritory. Just assume you will stay mostly in 1 city in each country. Plan on doing day trips. You might not learn the whole country, but you can get a very, very good taste of it!!!

I think it depends on what you want to see, what your interests are. I know mine, and plan my itinerary based on what sites I want to see or activities I want to participate in. Then I figure out the best way to get to them. So whether it's one country or several, my interests, proximity of each location, and of course the amount of money and time I can spend, drive my choices. I've done one country, and a couple at a time (that were close).
Others may like to just hit one country get more of a feel for the entire country - which is easier to do in Europe than the USA. Both can be rewarding experiences, but I would begin by planning what you want to see and do, rather than just the number of countries to visit.

Gio: Addressing your last question: "Can you get depth when you visit many countries, even if they're close together geographically?"IMO it's a trade-off: If you have 12 full days and stay in one country, it's a different experience than if you visit 3 countries in the same 12 days--ends up being a matter of personal preference that each traveler gets to decide for herself/himself. Maybe "depth" is more related to your overall approach, how much reading/research you chooose to do, and how little or how much time you spend in transit traveling between Town A and Town B.

Gio,

With only 12-14 days, I doubt that too much "depth" is going to be possible even in one country. For a trip of that length, my preference would be to choose no more than two countries and visit cities that are geographically fairly close. That way you're not going to waste too much of your valuable holiday time travelling between locations. Of course, using open jaw flights would also be preferable IMO.

Cheers!

Hi Gio,

Since you have only been to Europe twice, and only to one country in Europe, perhaps you should not really need to worry about an "indepth" trip yet. I mean , I would consider seeing two to three countries ( one city each, ie: Paris , Rome , and London ) in 14 days, and then , after trying out a few different places you will get a better feel for where you would like to spend a longer time. I honestly believe certian places click better with some people then others. Choosing to spend 14 days somewhere you discover just doesn't click might be a bit of a dissapointment, whereas 4 or 5 days somewhere great leaves you wanting to come back for more!

Now, of course , if you have special interests, then one should consider centering trip around that.

I personally think the worst thing a person can to is plan a trip with like 1 or 2 days in a major city and then proclaim they've " done it" .. I mean , no one can say they've done Rome, Paris, London, or serveral other major centers in one or two days. Also take into account the side trips one can take from a satellite city, that easily pushes most major cities visit time up to at least a week.

After all is said and done its all personal taste, there is thread on the board right now about some a poster who loved her whirlwind trip,, and for them it was great. So , no one can really answer this question for you , but you.

I love Paris and would never consder less then 7 days there. I do not love Rome, but would credit it with being at least worth 4 or 5 days.. its all tastes..

Hello Gio. I think the question that you asked is a good question, and I think all of the previous replies here are very good and helpful answers to your question. From my experiences of going on several trips to western Europe, my advice is : for your next trip to Europe : if your primary destination is Spain, and if you will be at the Europe continent for a total of 14 days, I recommend traveling in Spain and Portugal and France. I think that could be a satisfying experience. Doing that, you would not have time to see all of France. And I think being in Paris, in that trip, is not necessary. If you will be in Spain and Portugal, traveling to southern or southwest France would be convenient for you. (There are good destinations in southern and southwest France). You could fly from chicago to an airport in Spain. And at the end of your trip you might be able to fly from an airport in southern France to the U.S.A. Or, flying to and from Barcelona might be a satisfactory travel plan.

If you're young, have lots of energy and are trying to get an overview of different European countries it's o.k. to travel to more than one at a time as long as the geography works out. For example, in a 2 week time frame we've combined: Germany and the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia, Belgium and Holland, France and Germany (Alsace region), Spain and Portugal. Happy travels!

We've travelled both ways--many countries in 18 days; France in 4 weeks; and Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary in 3 weeks. My preferred method is to limit the travel times between destinations and the number of "unpacking days"--but that's just me. Each country has a variety of "sights"--cultural and geographical--so it's not always necessary to travel to another country. However, visiting multiple countries is fun and your "depth" factor probably depends on how you spend your time in each place! I like to build an itinerary by choosing appealing places/sights/activities and the necessary travel time and see how far I get!

If you travel with children this question would never come up. You'd stay in pretty much one or maybe two places. And you do experience the country. I'm actually happy that our kids "forced" us to travel this way because it really works great for us.

I don't have any desire to do many places in a short time frame. I'd feel more like a tourist, an outsider. No, I don't pretend I become an insider/local by staying in one place for 10 days. But anytime I stay at a place for a week or longer it feels much closer to the feeling I got when I lived in another country for an extended period of time (i.e. at least several months). With one or two nights I don't get anywhere close to that feeling.

I am an advocate for the "slow it down" model of travel - sorta like the "slow food" moment I guess. More quality, less quantity. If I can, I try to stay 3-4 days in any city. I have not spent more than 4 in one city though. I cannot imagine a 1 day/night - I would feel like I was just getting to see the city and would have to leave. I don't want to feel like I blew threw a city without appreciating it fully. On a 2 week trip, I would do one or two countries (if the countries are neighboring). 4 or 5 stops total.

I prefer the one country or one area option. I like to get to know a country as much as possible and i like to minimize travel between cities. Also as I get older, I like small towns more than cities. I don't see how you can go wrong traveling to just one country.

That said, I once did a 17 day trip covering Sweden (Stockholm only), Finland (Helsinki via an overnight cruise from Stockholm), Denmark (Copenhagen and Rostock), and Norway (Bergen, fjord cruise to Ballestrand, train to Oslo) and had a great time. Covering multiple cities can be fun, but you risk getting worn out and feeling rushed.

It depends on the country.

My approach is to cut a logical swath through a part of Europe.

I like taking three week minimum vacations.

My routes might be Spain and Portugal, the low countries and Southern Germany, Northern Germany and Scandinavia, the British Isles, Berlin-Prague-Vienna-Danube, the Baltics or a slice through former Soviet Block central European countries. France and Italy are big enough for a vacation to themselves.

Pare those back to make a doable 10-14 day vacation.