switching hotels and going on a train every two days could be annoying but if you are outgoing and an early riser, dont need much downtime at the hotel (the train can be the downtime), you could do it.
i wouldn't worry about enough time to experience a place - there will never be enough time to experience everything
i'd probably do 4-5 days in 3 cities over 2 weeks personally, or 2 cities. everyone is different in what they intend to do/realistically know how they behave
Save Slovenia for another trip. That train is slow and that's far off your route. Go Prague. Regensburg, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest. All high speed trains. All cool cities
If you're too poor to stay less than a week in a city/country just don't travel.
Yeah I know the definition of "travel" is "Moving from point A to point B" but really, don't waste ressources, just don't do it.
>how to say you're fat without saying that you're fat
Not everyone needs to take a 2 hour breather after having had to climb flight of stairs >inb4 b-but living like the localerinoes!!!
You're still a tourist whether you stay 2 days or 20 in a city
Why not Vatican? Also, Rome counts as a country if you're American enough
Also Monaco is no too far from Italy, I'd make make a half a day trip over there. You don't even have to stop, just do some sightseeing from your car and go back to Italy. Boom, one more country.
>nooo it's not REAL travel unless you stay in one location for weeks
I went to Washington DC recently and I was sick of the place after 2 days. I think I'm fine just spending a few days in multiple different cities instead of spending longer periods of time in the same place.
On my trips in Europe I always just stay 2 or 3 days (with one of those days usually being a day trip somewhere close) per place before moving on. Really a day is enough to see the sights, pick out 1 or 2 things that look the most interesting to you, and eat some local food. When I'm on my own I'd rather have some quick experience of many places rather than a more "deep" experience in fewer places, and then decide if it's worth coming back there with someone else in the future. Currently looking at a 8-10 city 14 day trip in December, love how much it irritates people here
you don't even lose any time out of the day if you can wake up early enough to get a bus/train to the next destination before europoors start working and things open at 9/10am. i can go 3 weeks on just ~5 hours sleep per night before it starts getting to me
also frick German trains, once my 6:20am train didn't show up until half 7. how can a first train of the day have over an hour delay
2-3 days is usually the perfect time.
I just guess based on the size of the city, how much it seems you can do and then add a day for any day trip. Works well for me.
i took the przemsyl -> lviv train 2 weeks ago and it was super smooth. probably sat at the border for 10 minutes. western ukraine, and even central is perfectly safe. highly recommend
yea you could probably do it in 2 days even
switching hotels and going on a train every two days could be annoying but if you are outgoing and an early riser, dont need much downtime at the hotel (the train can be the downtime), you could do it.
i wouldn't worry about enough time to experience a place - there will never be enough time to experience everything
i'd probably do 4-5 days in 3 cities over 2 weeks personally, or 2 cities. everyone is different in what they intend to do/realistically know how they behave
Save Slovenia for another trip. That train is slow and that's far off your route. Go Prague. Regensburg, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest. All high speed trains. All cool cities
I'd drop one city and leave your hotel bookings last minute in case you'd like to spend more/less in one
Also Budapest and Vienna are rather similar if you're an amerimutt and can't appreciate the smaller differences.
Follow this anon's advice basically
>a list of cities
a list of cities is unironically the best way to travel in europe
Go pick up some rocks or do astrophotography or something.
>le abandoned mines
>muh chinese phone
>
>Krakow
>Vienna
>Budapest
>Ljubljana
>Munich
>Prague
Is this feasible for 2 weeks?(OP)
>>a list of cities
>Pick random cities
>>Use it as a homebase for a 2-3 hour radius of everything including nature
why not Bratislava OP
Why is this not a bannable offense? why the frick do we not demand higher?
>travel forum
>posts are lists of cities
It's low effort garbage. OP should do a train tour laying on rails.
chuds don't want to hear that cities are and always have been 90% of what a country is
If you're too poor to stay less than a week in a city/country just don't travel.
Yeah I know the definition of "travel" is "Moving from point A to point B" but really, don't waste ressources, just don't do it.
perhaps a rich person would have less free time as their time is more valuable
>One generic rule to apply to all places
>how to say you're fat without saying that you're fat
Not everyone needs to take a 2 hour breather after having had to climb flight of stairs
>inb4 b-but living like the localerinoes!!!
You're still a tourist whether you stay 2 days or 20 in a city
Tinder bio: "I have been to X countries! ... And counting!!"
Incredible moronation, many such cases
You wont stop me adding a day trip for both San Marino and Liechtenstein to my Switzerland and Italy trip.
Why not Vatican? Also, Rome counts as a country if you're American enough
Also Monaco is no too far from Italy, I'd make make a half a day trip over there. You don't even have to stop, just do some sightseeing from your car and go back to Italy. Boom, one more country.
I didn't think that I needed to explicitly state that I am already counting the Vatican
>nooo it's not REAL travel unless you stay in one location for weeks
I went to Washington DC recently and I was sick of the place after 2 days. I think I'm fine just spending a few days in multiple different cities instead of spending longer periods of time in the same place.
Op would spend more time going places, finding the hotel, waiting for the cab, than actually visiting.
it just needs good planning
>finding the hotel, waiting for the cab
ngmi, spend a few quid more for a hotel a couple mins from the train/bus station
On my trips in Europe I always just stay 2 or 3 days (with one of those days usually being a day trip somewhere close) per place before moving on. Really a day is enough to see the sights, pick out 1 or 2 things that look the most interesting to you, and eat some local food. When I'm on my own I'd rather have some quick experience of many places rather than a more "deep" experience in fewer places, and then decide if it's worth coming back there with someone else in the future. Currently looking at a 8-10 city 14 day trip in December, love how much it irritates people here
Based, my fellow whirlwind traveler bro
If you post an itinerary like that on r*ddit you are going to get ungodly amounts of seethe
you don't even lose any time out of the day if you can wake up early enough to get a bus/train to the next destination before europoors start working and things open at 9/10am. i can go 3 weeks on just ~5 hours sleep per night before it starts getting to me
also frick German trains, once my 6:20am train didn't show up until half 7. how can a first train of the day have over an hour delay
based
2-3 days is usually the perfect time.
I just guess based on the size of the city, how much it seems you can do and then add a day for any day trip. Works well for me.
5 days minimum
Sure but you realistically should take four
how about this
>Krakow
>Przemsyl
>Lviv
>Kyiv
Decent journey. Ezpz to walk across border and get mashrutka to Lviv. Feels like "RealTravel" too.
Anybody on a train must do Mostar - Sarajevo. Such a kino route.
i took the przemsyl -> lviv train 2 weeks ago and it was super smooth. probably sat at the border for 10 minutes. western ukraine, and even central is perfectly safe. highly recommend