First time travelling to Europe Ideas

Live in Australia and have been to Japan 2 times. Looking to do Europe now. Would anyone share their wisdom? I'm ignorant of typical Europe tourist traps. At the moment I've thought about Rome, Paris, and London as the good starting cities.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't want to go to tourist traps
    >lists the biggest tourist traps

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The big Euro capitals OP mentioned aren't intrinsically tourist traps. Visiting *only* those places in each country is.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes but it also depends if you have 3 weeks and want to see a lot of Europe there's nothing wrong with only seeing Bratislava or Vienna or Prague and moving on. He said "European" vacation not Italian or French

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just go to Berlin. It's better.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are all tourist traps but:
    -Rome is overrated and expensive for me
    -Paris is a smelly shithole and whole worth going if you are shortly passing by
    -London is cool and chill and I loved it although its a meme destination

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You liked London but hated Rome? We would not get along. Rome is easily one the best vacation destinations on earth. Every street has something extraordinary to see on it, a fountain, a church, ruins, a giant plaza, an outdoor market, a fortress. You can wander the streets for days and not see it all.

      For a first trip to Europe, I do like the idea someone suggested of doing Prague, Vienna. Bratislava and Budapest. But honestly if you're doing 3 weeks, you could easily do those and also do Italy. Rome, Bologna, Florence, Verona and Venice are all connected by a high speed train.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Every street has something extraordinary to see
        Like what? Black folk trying to sell you shit? In the terms of seeing extraordinary on the streets madrid is much better than rome

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Let's be fricking real bro. Madrid is cool, but it's about 20 rungs down the ladder from Rome. There is no equivalent in Madrid to the Roman Coliseum, the Pantheon, St Peter's Basilica, or the Roman Forum. You could add a few dozen more Roman attractions to that list. If someone was visiting Europe for the first time and they want to see impressive historic shit, comparing Madrid to Rome is laughable. The only advantage of Madrid might be that it's slightly cheaper and that might appeal to some impoverished third-world Russian backpackers who were on a $10 a day budget.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Rome is unironically an attraction in an on itself, every fricking corner has a thousand year old rock or something.

            I can't wait for when I'm back at the Eternal City

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Rome is overrated and expensive
      what if you like history? I've never been to Europe but if I did go to Europe, Rome would probably be at the top of my list because of the history. It's not like you can see the Colosseum anywhere else.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    - There is nothing wrong with seeing europe as nothing more than a list of cities to visit, and there is nothing wrong with seeing each city as a checklist of items to see and photograph (and that includes tasks like taking a day trip to some other town or tourist hotspot close by)
    - Doing day tours catered to NPCs isn't even a bad thing to do. Try to go to some places in public transport can be hell, and hiring a car is really not so great if you are staying in a tourist city anyway
    - You don't need to get a shitty bus or train around on your poverty travelcard or whatever the frick they do these days, you can fly between places and it's often cheaper and more convenient to do so especially if there aren't any interesting to (You) stops along the way between city A and city B
    - It's expensive as frick everywhere. I'm not homeless and I have standards so I don't stay in hostels, but hotels in Poland (since you are probably already referencing it as a cheap country in your head already) are literally more expensive than Japan. why would you wanna prop up this collapsing continent any more by staying longer than necessary in places? It will just leave you poor and dissapointed
    - Ignore all the advice from SighSee, it's just full of try hards who don't travel who want to tell you that you don't get a "real", "authentic", "deep" experience unless you're sitting in some random as frick village getting served beer by someone playing dressup in lederhosen (the real deep authentic experience doesn't exist when travelling so stop kidding yourself). The only thing worse than SighSee advice is travel vlogs/blogs written by women

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you travel 2 weeks every 5 years then no worry, maybe staying only in capitals is a bit a shame. There are many big touristic cities in those countries that will provide a different experience than just the 5 millions + pop.
      I mean why not a few days in Liverpool that has a completely different atmosphere than London.

      But I think you don't realise the "real traveler" crowds are usually people who have spent years traveling in their lives and going from hotel to hotel by plane and taxi and stay all day in crowds of chinese and americans to take pictures of monuments get very tiring quick. I have nothing against it in itself, but no one can endure it for prolonged time.

      I don't think it's tryhard to prefer some change and you don't need to be some adventurer elite to take some train to a 30k pop city then some day trip from there to hike and see some villages or lakes and shit.

      It's weird to me that people actually defend the idea that tourism should just happen in the 0.1% of a country that's designed just for that.
      Especially now with airbnb where you can find clean and comfy places outside of those hubs and don't need to rely 100% on hotels.

      You seem more of an elitist jerk than the real travelers actually.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How long will you be there?
    What are your interests?
    What are you looking to achieve (Do you give a shit about partys and shit or hiking or do you want to just soak in the feel of cities)

    It's kind of hard to help unless we know some basic info

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      3 weeks
      Seeing historical places, museums, hiking/walking trails, and food
      Don't care about parties. Don't drink or do drugs. Like doing things solo. So just experiencing the city is my preference.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        If museums and just taking shit in is your main goal I'd for say go to Rome and Florence. Just be sure to book your ticket time in advance for certain things like ufizi or Academia or Vatican etc. And I would 100% spend a day in Sienna if in Florence.

        Vienna, Bratislava, and Budapest are all within a very close drive/train to one another. Vienna and Budapest are absolutely worth it Bratislava you can basically see in a day but some people chose to spend more there.

        As:

        https://i.imgur.com/VcmxyMX.jpg

        - There is nothing wrong with seeing europe as nothing more than a list of cities to visit, and there is nothing wrong with seeing each city as a checklist of items to see and photograph (and that includes tasks like taking a day trip to some other town or tourist hotspot close by)
        - Doing day tours catered to NPCs isn't even a bad thing to do. Try to go to some places in public transport can be hell, and hiring a car is really not so great if you are staying in a tourist city anyway
        - You don't need to get a shitty bus or train around on your poverty travelcard or whatever the frick they do these days, you can fly between places and it's often cheaper and more convenient to do so especially if there aren't any interesting to (You) stops along the way between city A and city B
        - It's expensive as frick everywhere. I'm not homeless and I have standards so I don't stay in hostels, but hotels in Poland (since you are probably already referencing it as a cheap country in your head already) are literally more expensive than Japan. why would you wanna prop up this collapsing continent any more by staying longer than necessary in places? It will just leave you poor and dissapointed
        - Ignore all the advice from SighSee, it's just full of try hards who don't travel who want to tell you that you don't get a "real", "authentic", "deep" experience unless you're sitting in some random as frick village getting served beer by someone playing dressup in lederhosen (the real deep authentic experience doesn't exist when travelling so stop kidding yourself). The only thing worse than SighSee advice is travel vlogs/blogs written by women

        said don't be afraid to fly. I just searched and a flight from Florence to Madrid is 50 bucks. So you could do Rome and Florence then fly to Madrid or Amsterdam or Budapest and start another leg of the trip, don't think everything has to be in a line.

        As far as London it's worth it to see at some point but if you're coming for Australia and that's all you plan to see in Europe I'd maybe hold off. There's much better places to see in the UK and you'd probably get more value out of cities on the continent in terms of experiencing something new.

        Don't sleep on Madrid - the Prado Museum is great and it's sort of slept on by tourists who go to Barcelona and Seville and seem to just skip over Madrid (toledo is also a nice day trip when in Spain).

        If you want some cities that are a great atmosphere Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Venice, etc. These are great to walk aimlessly in. Don't listen to SighSee when they say Amsterdam and Venice aren't "MUH SUPER INTREPID TOURIST SITE" if you're going to Europe for the first time there's nothing wrong with going to the "big cities" they're visited a lot for a reason.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >and that's all you plan to see in Europe
          I meant to say in the UK

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would read, see the pics about the shitty capitals but go to more scenic places win. 40 years of travels tell me op has no friends and ask dumb stuff. Budget will be your bruxha. Do your best, but understand about all that, ass fricking will happen. Choose where if possible. Do a rape shower scene on insta and move on. Europe is great! But some stuff and places will ruin you. Specially if moronic muricans.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seville, Dubrovnik and Östersund.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I unapologetically love both Paris and London, although if big cities aren’t your idea of fun your experience will vary. I am not crazy about Rome, however—more than either of the other two, it always seems unpleasantly crowded with tourists at major attractions, and I find large swathes of the city surprisingly grubby. Incomparable history, though, and still a lot of charm among the Chinese selfie-stick hordes. But there are probably about ten Italian cities I like more.

    What do you like? History, museums, art, nightlife, food, etc.? How long will you be in Europe, with whom; and on what kind of budget? Driving (NOT RECOMMENDED for Paris, Rome, or London btw)? Trains? Bus? Flying?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like history, museums, art, and food. Not into nightlife. Will be there for 3 weeks and going alone. Budget will be around $5000-6000AUD ($4000ish USD). Will use trains and buses.
      At the moment I've got this list of cities: Rome (4 nights), Florence (3 nights), Venice (1 night), Vienna (3 nights), Budapest (3 nights), Prague (3 nights), Paris (3 nights), and London (4nights).
      >

      Would read, see the pics about the shitty capitals but go to more scenic places win. 40 years of travels tell me op has no friends and ask dumb stuff. Budget will be your bruxha. Do your best, but understand about all that, ass fricking will happen. Choose where if possible. Do a rape shower scene on insta and move on. Europe is great! But some stuff and places will ruin you. Specially if moronic muricans.


      Please explain yourself

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        My critique is very simple, you have way not enough time for 4 cultural hot spots (Rome, Vienna, Paris and London) given your interest. If you want to get a first sneak peak at it yeah possible. Also it calls for a good number of flights (Venice - Vienna, Budapest - Prague, Prague - Paris).
        Take the region that interest you most pick one hot spot and then goof around in the wider area (yeah rather pick some tier 2,3,4 cities or even villages) you will see a lot more and have a better trip than hopping from center to center.
        Don't turn it into a asia tier sensory overload trip by ticking of "must sees".

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > At the moment I've got this list of cities: Rome (4 nights), Florence (3 nights), Venice (1 night), Vienna (3 nights), Budapest (3 nights), Prague (3 nights), Paris (3 nights), and London (4nights).
        You’re moving very fast, then. People here and elsewhere love to complain about high-speed, big-city-checklist kinds of traveling, and while I agree that slower trips to fewer places are a bit more immersive and generally more relaxing, I don’t see anything wrong with doing it your way, either, as long as you understand that you’re in for a very rushed holiday. But I hope and assume you are accounting for travel times as you make your plans, as you’re probably covering more ground than you think you are. If these are in projected chronological visiting order and you don’t plan to fly at all, Venice is at least three hours from Florence, and it’s probably ten hours from Florence to Vienna. Paris is going to be at least twelve hours from Prague overland. So you might consider a couple of flights to give you more time on the ground in your chosen cities. Low-cost airfares in Europe don’t usually end up being quite as cheap as people think they are (the tiny base fares that get pulled up by the aggregators and search engines might double or more when things like seats or check-in are tacked on), but they’re still quite cheap—I see one-way tickets between Prague and Paris coming up for around €60 at the moment, so even if it doubles you’re looking at €120 (just under $200 Australian at the moment) at worst. Trains will typically cost as much or more, buses potentially a lot less, but both add a lot of hours compared to flying, at least for relatively long-distance routes. Personally, when I travel within Europe, I consider train journeys of up to four or five hours worth any additional expense compared to flying the same routes, because it’s more comfortable and should take you directly to city centers, so less added time than it seems.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          And with apologies for the above wall of text, my personal suggestions for can’t miss bits of some of your proposed cities:
          >Rome
          Vatican (full day or close enough), Colosseum, Pantheon, Forum (could all theoretically be done in one exhausting day, but better in at least two). Then you’re out of time. Trastevere is a charming neighborhood, full of local hipsters and lots and lots of tourists.
          >Florence
          You already know where the art is. The Duomo is magnificent. Take time to study the doors.
          >Venice
          Don’t eat on Piazza San Marco. Walk down three or four alleys away from any tourist trap and discover places locals actually eat and live. Stay on an outlying island.
          >Paris
          Louvre is arguably overrated, and almost always too crowded, but undeniably contains some of the world’s most important European artworks. Musée d’Orsay is also often too crowded but in my experience offers more satisfying art bang for your buck. Catacombs are a tourist trap that is worth it, Notre Dame is still under reconstruction but you might as well, Eiffel Tower is a question of personal taste. I don’t care for it but my kids love it, so I’ve been at least three times. Recommend walking down from the top. If you have to choose between the tower and Versailles (also immensely crowded, will take most of a full day), I recommend Versailles. The Centre Pompidou sometimes has cool artistic offerings, but you may not have time. I like Le Marais and Montmartre as neighborhoods, of which Le Marais is much more central. It’s also very gay so if you’re uncomfortable with homosexuals Montmartre is a better choice.
          >Budapest
          Weather permitting, go to one or more of the baths.
          >London
          You can do nothing but museums and run out of time. The London Museum is free and surprisingly interesting for local history. I like the V&A, but if you don’t enjoy design and industrial arts you may not. Tower of London is a worth-it tourist trap: get a beefeater tour.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, and I found both the museums and surroundings of Greenwich worth it last time I was in London. But you could also just spend the entire time in the British Museum and not see it all.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              And and…It’s also overcrowded and is probably a meme by now, but I unapologetically love the food at Dishoom in London. Modern take on Parsi/Persian Indian dishes. Or just eat at whatever curry palace you walk by that is most crowded for a less bourgeois South Asian feed.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *