Sightseeing Priorities

Thanks Kent! That looks better.

Well we don't know where you already have been but these are my ideas.

I would concentrate on just one country and spend all my time there and see it somewhat in depth. For instance you could just do Italy in one trip or go to England including some of the countryside. IMHO just doing London is not enough as the countryside is so beautiful. England could be combined with Paris but I think you need at least 5 days in each city to really do them justice and not feel rushed.

By concentrating on one country, you avoid all that travel between places which takes up a lot of valuable time. You also will end up with a better feel of the place than you will get if you dash around to many countries. I think too many people try to cover too many countries in one trip.

Everyone will have different opinions but I prefer concentrating on one area only in a trip.

When Scotty gets his transporter working and you can instantly transport from one venue to another, that will still be an awfully tight list.

14 Days: London, Amsterdam, Rhein, Paris, Swiss Alps, Rome. (6 places)

At least you are not trying to go from Paris directly to Rome! :)

I've spent close to 2 weeks on the Rhein and Mosel combined.

I've also spent 2 weeks just in Bavaria.

The primary reason I go to Germany is I am a student of the German language and I want practice speaking it. That's hard to do in most of France and Italy. The other reason is that it is inexpensive. German Rail gives very good discount tickets. Also, the quality of accommodation is so good that I can economize in that area and not skimp on quality.

In my opinion 4 days wouldn't be adequate for Bavaria, even without sharing it with Cinque Terre. Let's see, plan a day in Rothenburg and 3 days in Munich. Ops. What about Salzburg, Berchtesgaden, Würzburg, Füssen. No time for Cinque Terre.

Seven weeks before you get York or Edinburgh (no Highlands?), eight weeks before you get Ireland, and even after two months, no Norwegian fjords? I guess everyone has different priorities!
In defense of the "blitz tour," my first trip to Europe as a high school senior traveling with my mother was an organized tour of eleven countries in 30 days. The overview gave me an idea of what I wanted to visit in depth at a future date. Sort of like taking a survey course before you pick your major.

A tour like that is like a Whitman sampler. Unfortunately there's always some coconut.

Hi Karen,
For 2 weeks my "sightseeing priorities" would be something like:--(assuming that you havent' already visited these destinations.)

*Paris (4 nights);

*Train to Swiss Alps via Zurich (stay in Berner Oberland), (3 nights);

*Train back to Zurich to fly from Zurich to Rome, (check discount airline--possibly Air Berlin);

*Train to/stay in Orvieto (2 nights),

*Rome (3-4 nights)--fly home from Rome.

I'd save London for another trip. This provides a good overview of "bests" but not too hectic.

Remember there are bunches of possibilities--this is just one!

I agree with Maryann. No way would I try to go to Paris, the Swiss Alps, London and Paris in 10 days. I would choose one of those locations and pick one other place in the vicinity, such as Paris and Normandy, or London with a few day trips.

However, I think Rick's list is a good list of highlights in Europe -- places to see some day. I just wouldn't do them all in one trip.

I do have that many days each summer, and I use them all - I'm a school teacher. But I don't try to see that many different places, it's too much to absorb. I would recommend spending more time in fewer places if you have that kind of time. There is no way anyone has that amount of energy to spend to keep up a break neck pace for 6 to 7 weeks.

I tend to spend 4 to 6 days in each place, even the smaller places. I don't want to come home exhausted, only to return to work.

I am about to spend 70 days this summer travelling through Europe; I'd be happy to share this and other trips with you all.

Chris - That's great! Either you have found a way to economize so that you can do this or teachers in Vancouver are paid what their worth unlike the paltry sum they make in the US.

Karen - I have to agree with spending most of my time in one country versus the whirlwind tour of just hitting the highlights. Although I must say, that this is an impressive and ambitious itinerary.

My secret? I don't have a family. I can't complain about my wages, I work to travel. I live modestly through the year, I save and then I travel. I am, therefore I travel.

First.,, good for you Chris,, travel IS more important then a new kitchen reno,, or a new car , etc to many of us,, but its all about choosing how to divide the pie,, and I agree, travel is a great way to do it..

Karen, my basic thing is one week , one country,, and never go for less then two weeks, preferably three or four at least. Shortest trip I ever took to
Europe was 9 days in Paris and I really felt that was too short.

I did do a 14 day RS Family tour last summer with my 12 yr old, but added another 12 days on ( 11 more in Paris and one more in Rome) .. it was a bit of whirlwind doing 5 coutries in 14 days,, but I wanted dd to just have a little taste of alot of places for her first time.

As for Ricks list of "priorities" thats for Rick,, everyone must decide their own. I will never go to some of those places no matter how long I have,, I am not interested,, but some he put at bottom I would love to go back to for longer visits!

Pat, that's a good point. You should make your own list based on what you want to see, and while RS has a lot of good things to say, feel free to go to other places for longer if you choose.

For example, I love opera so I spent four days in Verona to see three operas.

Personally, I can't spend every day of my trip in a city visiting museums, I get glassy eyed and I pass by a Rembrandt without giving it the attention it deserves. So I like to break up my cities with smaller towns and natural landscapes.

I think that the other posters are correct that everyone has to decide on his/her own priorities and then plan an itinerary around individual interests. Rick's "priorities" are slanted toward great museum cities and as Chris pointed out there's more to experience beyond the museums (I love Verona too and would put it on my "list.")

I also don't that the Rick's priorities are organized in a sequence that makes sense travel-wise. Over the last 20 years or so, I've visited almost all of his top places to see in 56 days but I'm happy that I didn't do that all in one trip--or even two.

Use the priorities as a guide for planning and add your own destinations as well!

I'm guessing Kent thought I would choke when I read (which I just did for the first time) that a five day visit to Europe would prioritize the Swiss Alps along with Paris. How would one even do that?

I would come at this differently: If you plan to travel to Europe for two or three week vacations every other year for the next two decades, what areas would you prioritize?

And bear in mind the dimension of time. When I began traveling, there were two Germanies. Yugoslavia was a popular RS recommendation but then a few years later...not so much. Now people love Croatia.

First- what are YOUR interests? That will help you determine YOUR priorities. We all have our loves and our "brussels sprouts" (I personally will never go to Paris again- no problem- there are lots of people who love it). I agree with those who say select 1 or 2 areas and spend quality time there. Personally the UK can easily take more than 2 weeks! Austria is wonderful as are Germany and the Scandinavian countries. Those are just MY personal favorites. Remember Rick's advice- plan that you WILL COME BACK! You can't do it all in one trip- no matter how long you think you have.

As was mentioned, the order is entirely dependent on your interests. I often ask people what one thing really gets them. For some, it is dreams of being atop the Eifel Tower, for others visiting the area their ancestors are from, for others, ancient Rome or Greece. That serves as a starting point. As for pace, for a first trip, I think it is very appropriate to take a brisk pace. By this I mean maybe 3 nights for a major site, 2 for a lesser site. Even in Paris, that lets you see the major sites, but not bog you down with thinking you need to do six art museums or a dozen churches. Myself, I had studied Rembrandt's Nightwatch maybe a half dozen times through High School and College. When we decided on Amsterdam as our first stop on our first trip, of course we were there. I still vividly recall standing in front of that painting, awed, even a tear or two coming down. That is the type of experience that makes trips more than a list of things to see, and the good thing is that the first trip had maybe a hundred of those.

I don't agree at all.

A ten day trip that includes Paris, London and Rome is silly.

If you have two weeks, pick an single area such as Benelux, the British Isles, Germany/Austria, France (by itself), Italy (by itself) or Spain/Portugal to visit.

Covering a lot of distance in a short vacation increases your travel costs and uses up valuable time.

Karen, I have the same problem deciding which country is next on my list of must sees. I change my mind several times before I actually book the trip. I can only take about a week at a time off from work so we usually stay in one place and take a day trip or two from there. So far we have done London (twice), 2 day trips to Paris, Warwick, Hampton Court and Bath, Rome and Florence. Next year we are planning a trip to Edinburgh and York. I hope to be able to keep traveling to Europe for many years to come as my list keeps getting longer.