Top 10 cities in Europe to visit (hotel, live in, train)

[CroatWebWanderer]

Originally Posted by CMDallas

Paris (is over ratted)

Paris overrated? C'mon, you can’t overrate the best city in the world.
Other than that, your list is OK. I'd switch Warsaw for Krakow (also in Poland), much nicer city IMO. As for the rest of Eastern Europe, Prague and Budapest are a must (touristy but for a reason). I would add St Petersburg (Russia) here if it wasn't a bit far.

West Europe tour: Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna, Venice, Rome.

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by CroatWebWanderer

Paris overrated? C'mon, you can’t overrate the best city in the world.
Other than that, your list is OK. I'd switch Warsaw for Krakow (also in Poland), much nicer city IMO. As for the rest of Eastern Europe, Prague and Budapest are a must (touristy but for a reason). I would add St Petersburg (Russia) here if it wasn't a bit far.

West Europe tour: Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna, Venice, Rome.

St Petersburg is just gorgeous, I absolutely adore it .
And I agree about Krakow, a beautiful city, Warsaw IMO is a complete dump.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

And I agree about Krakow, a beautiful city, Warsaw IMO is a complete dump.

If I'm not mistaken, Warsaw was completely smashed in the 1939-1945 period, so nothing of historical interest. Evidently Krakow was spared.

I believe a similar situation exists in Netherlands: Rotterdam, I believe, was smashed, and the rest was spared in return for surrender. That may be a crude summary, but that's what a citizen of the country explained to me once.

Amsterdam is great even though it didn't make my top ten list.

In Italy, Milan was smashed pretty badly, but it wasn't the first time in its history, while Rome, Florence and Venice were pretty much spared, the latter until it sinks (so hurry up!).

[nativeDallasite]

Originally Posted by bale002

If I'm not mistaken, Warsaw was completely smashed in the 1939-1945 period, so nothing of historical interest. Evidently Krakow was spared.

Oh please, that's ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Old_Town

They rebuilt it brick by brick.

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

Oh please, that's ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Old_Town

They rebuilt it brick by brick.

Absolutely but the rest of the city is a dump IMO anyway. A Friend of mine lives in Warsaw and hates it. In his words, it's a Soviet lump of grey and depressing matter (though it is improving as Poland becomes richer and investments flow in). He's made a fortune on real estate though...

[nativeDallasite]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

Absolutely but the rest of the city is a dump IMO anyway. A Friend of mine lives in Warsaw and hates it. In his words, it's a Soviet lump of grey and depressing matter (though it is improving as Poland becomes richer and investments flow in). He's made a fortune on real estate though...

And some people might find that interesting, particularly if they have Polish heritage like I do. People need to give Poland a break; it regained its status as a sovereign nation only in 1919, only to be crushed into dust a short 20 years later by the Germans and the Soviets, then trapped behind the Iron Curtain until 1989.

Give them a break; it won't be rich and beautiful overnight...but who says it has to be in order to be interesting?

[bale002]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

And some people might find that interesting, particularly if they have Polish heritage like I do. People need to give Poland a break; it regained its status as a sovereign nation only in 1919, only to be crushed into dust a short 20 years later by the Germans and the Soviets, then trapped behind the Iron Curtain until 1989.

Give them a break; it won't be rich and beautiful overnight...but who says it has to be in order to be interesting?

I apologize, the intent was not to offend.

I answered the question on the assumption, possibly mistaken, that the OP was about to embark on what may be a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Europe and I focused on those cities with the longest histories and longest-standing architectural monuments and works of art from ancient imperial, what is referred to as "medieval" and renaissance times in particular, and up to the 19th century when, as you write, Poland was not even a sovereign "nation", and in any case things that one would almost never see in situ in the US (there are some guilded-age mansion museums with imitations, for example, parts of New York, Washington with neo-classical architecture, to cite another).

I have never been to Poland, but my understanding is that Krakow shares in such characteristics (similar to Trieste, Vienna, Prague, Bratislava, Budapest) and that Warsaw does not.

In any case, I recall that there was a time when Poland/Lithuania ruled a large swathe of territory in eastern Europe. Do you know what was the main city then in what is Poland today? Was it Krakow?

[Mooseketeer]

Originally Posted by nativeDallasite

And some people might find that interesting, particularly if they have Polish heritage like I do. People need to give Poland a break; it regained its status as a sovereign nation only in 1919, only to be crushed into dust a short 20 years later by the Germans and the Soviets, then trapped behind the Iron Curtain until 1989.

Give them a break; it won't be rich and beautiful overnight...but who says it has to be in order to be interesting?

I love Poland actually ( I strongly recommended it to others on a different thread), I was only pointing out that Warsaw is not the prettiest of places that's all. I think it is a beautiful country and hope to go back soon. I just think Krakow is much nicer. The same I feel about Oxford and Newcastle. One is incredibly beautiful the other isn't . It's not Newcastle's fault but the LuftWaffe did a good job of destroying it and it has not been rebuilt particularly well.

I am sorry if I offended you, I did not mean to, I think because I have a deep interest in Architecture, Warsaw did not appeal to me . That is all. I think it is getting much better but to me it was a bit like Bucarest, a thoroughly depressing place.

And I understand the history of Poland and why Warsaw may not be the most attractive. You are absolutely right, it does not have to be terribly pretty to be interesting.
When I was in Budapest 2 years ago my partner and I made a concerted effort to drive out to the tourist-free still very "Soviet" suburbs so we could see the real Budapest not just the tarted up tourist city. Interesting but still I preferred the centre I'm afraid...

I am a bit of an Architecture fiend and Soviet architecture really does not appeal to me in the slightest.

[decafdave]

wow thanks for alot of good advice. To the person that asked, I will have the 21 day pass so I can't spend any more that 2 or 3 days at any one city. And it will be in May so how would you rank the weather in Scotland during that time?

[Lillietta]

There are many! Many! But if I could choose only one - it would be Venice - late September or spring before it's sooooo congested.

May should be quite nice in Scotland. I even had good luck in March, but that's pushing it.