Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My boyfriend and I are taking our first trip to europe but we arent sure what is realistic when it comes to how much we can see in 2 weeks we would like to see
Berlin
Amsterdam
Paris
Barcelona
Roma
We arent sure where to start and when to end or how much its going to cost us.
Is this too much in not enough time? is it even possible to get to all these places on a train?
I can talk about Rome, Barcelona and Paris, since those are the ones I have been to. Of the ones you mentioned, the city I know best is Rome.
Barcelona is amazing (great choice!) and it is feasible to visit it in not so much time, but there is a lot to see in Paris - and especially Rome, if you like history, is impossible to pack in 2 weeks for a total of 5 cities.
Then again I am not sure what your expectations are, maybe a very quick visit to each place would suffice and then I would say it is enough. I am certainly not one who likes the "10 countries in 10 days!" idea (I know this is not what you will do, I am just trying to express a general idea here) so I prefer to see less cities and enjoy more of each place.
About pricing, it really depends on how much you can afford and what your standards are. Rome has quite nice, well-located (makes a big difference since Rome's subway system is very limited), affordable hotels, but of course if you want luxury things are expensive anywhere.
I am sure you will get lots of replies...the only things I suggest are:
Choose between seeing one or two cities WELL or seeing more cities but lesser time in each.....we preferred to narrow it down to 3 cities for 2 weeks, Paris, Florence and Rome. That way you can enjoy the local culture and restaurants and people (and a bit of rest too) instead of hurrying through your days to get to the next location.
It is hard to choose though....and, I got from the library books on travel to the areas we wanted to see as well as a book of tips on travel abroad. Fun to read and informative too.
I have only been 'on holiday' to barcelons and Roma, The rest were working trips and don't count. I went to Paris about 8 times for work but managed to see a different bit each time.
We just did 9 days in Roma and we could of done 7 but no less then that... if you want to see it properly. We spent about 5 hours in the vatican alone and after that you are too tired to tackle the other stuff....
We did Barcelona for 5 days and that was a good amount of time. It takes a day to get your bearings in a city - I always do the city bus tour and then spend the next few on foot when I know where everything is and what I want to see....
I hate it when I have been somewhere and i return and someone says "Oh wow I love it there did you go to ABC?" and I haven't and I kick myself cos it sounds exactly like the kind of thing I would enjoy...
so I am with the others maybe cut 2 cities out.... Amsterdam, Paris Barcelona would be do-able...
I think it really depends on what you want to get out of each location. You wouldn't be able to spend more than 2-3 days at each location and that would probably be at a rushed pace. You'll have to be very organized and follow a strict plan if you want to fit everything in. From personal experience, I know that's a recipe for disaster for me. Personally, I would rather be able to take my time and absorb the culture of each location before moving on. If I'm on a tight schedule, I find I'm not able to really enjoy myself because I'm thinking too much about keeping to the schedule.
So I don't think I would get much out of a rushed 2-3 day visit to such major cities but if you think you will, go for it. I recommend using Frommer's suggested itineraries to help you plan. For example - here's Paris in one, two and/or three days:
Day One: In One Day in Paris at Frommer's (http://www.frommers.com/destinations/paris/0062020766.html - broken link)
Day Two: In Two Days in Paris at Frommer's (http://www.frommers.com/destinations/paris/0062020790.html - broken link)
Day Three: In Three Days in Paris at Frommer's (http://www.frommers.com/destinations/paris/0062020791.html - broken link)
They have the same for each city.
You can see those cities in two weeks. But I would chose maybe 3 instead. Honestly I would take Amsterdam off the list it really is not that great from what my friends told me who went there. Paris, Barcelona and Rome are must IMO. I lived in Barcelona for 6 months and went to Rome and Paris. All fantastic cities.
The European Train this is a huge myth its good for large cities near each other. But if you were to do a Paris-Barcelona-Rome flying will be much cheaper and take much less time. I really suggest cutting at least one of the cities out. It would be smart to start making reservations etc..
I would drop Amsterdam and Berlin and add Venice, Tuscany, Provence, or Lake Como instead.
Venice is AMAZING, easily one of the best places in Europe. You could also fit in one of the well-known towns in Tuscany or Provence.
If you are dead set on Germany, I would choose southern Germany, either Munich or Heidelberg or one of the smaller towns like Garmsich-Partinkirchen. (sp.)
However, if it were me, I would start in Paris, go down to Barcelona, and then work my way down through Italy, ending in Rome.
I always think it is a good idea to mix in some smaller towns along the route....Paris, Barcelona and Rome are huge, crowded, busy, and exhausting. You don't say when you are going, but it could also be hot.
Take a few days in small towns in Southern France or the Tuscany region to break it up, and you will end up with a more relaxed vacation. Believe it or not, after awhile, all the churches and museums will start to look the same. (Well, with the exception of the Vatican).
Hostels are cheap but they are not always the best value.
Check out Eurotrip. That site has a feasibility feature.
You are looking at an awful lot of cities for two weeks. Don't forget to account for travel time between cities, whether you are flying or taking the train.
Still, you *could* see and do a lot with the time you have.
I like all your choices. Berlin is a fantastic city with a vibrant arts scene.
Amsterdam is lovely and friendly. Paris is walkable and beautiful.
Barcelona has incredible nightlife. Rome is eternal.
Before you decide to drop a city (and you probably should) you might think about which would work out the cheapest/best in terms of flying in/out. You could also think about doing open jaw (into one city and out another.)
I would say Paris, Rome and Berlin would give a good contrast.
I'd also recommend flying between cities rather than rail travel. You'll waste too much time taking the train IMO.
Ryanair and other low-cost airlines are worth checking out.
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,921 posts, read 13,858,315 times
Reputation: 5229
Of the destinations you have noted, do check the prices to get there.
Often, Barcelona is on the low end for flight cost.
You can then get a 5 triptick from Eurail.
See if you can do overnight travel, where you can sleep on the trains.
Saves you accommodation for a few nights.
Just make a big round trip and you're set.
Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Roma, Barcelona.
The trip from Roma to Barcelona would be most picturesque.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
