>>1092942
>Dublin, London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Venice, some of the italian cost (Pic related) and Barcelona. Could we reasonably do each of these cities in two days WITH travel time?
No.

Every one of those cities has lots to do in them, you could spend a week in each to do them slowly, maybe three days WITHOUT travel time to do them comfortably. You'd probably still be a bit rushed running around.

Two days in Paris including travel time? You'd barely get through the louvre in that.

>>1093030
Umm, if you're saying Paris is a 'diversity ruined third world shithole', how you can say Brussels is god tier?

>>1093030
Bullshit

>god tier
Florence

>bro tier
Paris
London
Barcelona

>meh tier
Rest

I'd skip Paris, Brussles and Amsterdam desu senpai.
Unless that place where Hitler took his photo is still up so I can recreate it, no other value to me.

I hope your gf isn't hell bent on Paris as "a city of romance" because of the utter disappointment that is to come to her and by extension to you and your end of the trip.

Rome and Italy in general is worth dedicating more time. Try to go off the beaten path and have some days in obscure villages to escape the rush and have a day or two rest and relaxation, etc.

Just keep it simple. Got to London and also see some more of England. Then you can spend the rest of your trip in Italy.

I'd swap out Brussels (terrorists yaknow) for Berlin. Amsterdam is a lot of fun if you know where to go. If you insist of going to Belgium I'd choose Antwerp or Bruges over Brussels.

Take your time in most of these cities and take 3 days at least.

>>1092942
it really depends on the city... there are citys you could spend easily a week and there are citys you get bored at the second day

London: dont know, didnt like it that much, most interesting things are the free museums

Brussel is a shit, really nothing to do there. Brügge is awesome but small. You could stay one night there, because of short traveling distances in this area its ok. Ostende is ok to for a night.

Amsterdam, really nice but people say utrecht is better. 2 nights should be enough.

barcelona is nice to. Can spend there up to 5 days if you want to go to the beach to.

would also include berlin.


I prefer to visit a lot of citys and said to me never spend more than 3 nights in a city. That are at least two whole days plus two half days.
in that time you can see most important things and dont get bored.

>>1094456
>choosing Bruges over Brussels
C'mon anon, get your act together.


Anyway, OP, I'd suggest you stay at least 3-4 days in one city, excluding travel time. Spending two days in every city, including travel time, means you'll see the most famous landmarks, have sore feet and be knackered constantly. Not how you want to spend your trip.

French here.
Paris is nice If you know where to go, visit some famous museum go to montmartre, le marais, the eiffel tower if you wish to but if I were you I'd spend most of my time there to wandering and getting lost in the tiny streets eating nice food. Get lost in the city and listen to the street performers at night.

The thing about London is that the central touristy area is like a worse version of other European cities, and many of the other areas are shit tier hab zones. To get a good experience in London you kind of have to go out of your way. The more obvious, but still neat options are places like Camden, Greenwich and Soho, but I'm sure there are many other great areas I'm unfamiliar with.

As for the OP, 3 days is pretty standard, but I'd try to stay flexible if I could. If I was going solo I'd probably not book more than three days ahead, so that I could stay longer if I wanted to, and go with cheap accommodations so that checking out a day early wouldn't burn a hole in my wallet.

>>1094546
You should note that I am an incorrigible hipster faggot when I recommend Camden and Greenwich

>>1094469
I live in the Netherlands and trust me if you want to see some of what's left of our culture (flooded by nignogs and the sorts) you should visit fucking Amsterdam.

nothing beats Amsterdam, especially if you like drugs and sex.

>>1094565
i've been ther twice for one day. once with parents and once with 3 friends. both times drove in the morning there and returned in the evening. I have to drive 5 hours... should go there once and stay there for one or two nights...

depends on what and how you visit

I always travel with GF,
4 nights at Amsterdam was not enough,
3 at Florence was short (we visited Siena)
Cinque Terra needs only 1 day if you don't hike.
3 at Venise is OK
2 nights at Brussels is more than enough
1 week in Paris and we still missed so much
4 nights at Barcelona was not enough
3 nights in Rome was not enough

plan you travel, you can start with Dublin-London-Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam
these cities are easily linked by train, it's faster than plane.(you don't need to check-in hours before flight)

>>1092942
>My girlfriend and I are doing 19 nights in Europe
Go for days, they're more interesting than nights and way more is open

>>1092942
>irlfriend and I are doing 19 nights in Europe this May.
>doing
lol. What is it with Americans and "doing" places? Cities are not theme park rides or hobby activities.

>some of the italian cost (Pic related)
Cinque Terre is ridiculously touristy and tedious, there are far cooler places with a fraction of the people. Also Italy has coasts all over the peninsula and islands, there is not one "Italian coast." Can you find Italy on a map?

>Florence, Venice
Get ready for Disenyland European Edition

>Burssels
Why would you do this to yourself? Do you like dripping concrete and bureaucrats?

Honestly anon your post reads as if you just listed every European city you could name, or that you saw in a Contiki brochure, and said you want to go there in a little under 3 weeks. While this is technically doable, it will be a miserable, rushed, stressful, and expensive experience.

Pick 3 of those places that are nearby at very most, read up about the surrounding regions and what's nearby, and visit those instead. There is way more to Europe than big cities.

>>1092942
I'm european and I travel a lot.

If you do big cities like London or Paris plan at least 2 Nights. Tke a hotel near center. It'll cost you more, but you'll gain hours of time.

Forget about Dublin except you like partying. Ireland is a wonderful country, but forget about Dublin.

Do the alps (Switzerland, Austria, Italia, Slovenia) and/or the dolomites. Lago di Garda might also be interesting. Florence is great, Venice might be a disappointment. VERY touristic and not what you'd might think it is.

Like already stated here, Bruges > Bruxelles. You can do Bruges in one day, it's cleaner, easier to access and has lovely canals, great little restaurants. Bruxelles is nice too, but I liked Bruges better.

If you go to Germany, it hasn't to be the capital. Berlin is fantastic, but go there for a week or two. It is simply put too big, and you'll lose huge amounts of time in bus/train/metro etc... You might try Munich, Frankfurt, Dresden instead, but don't fix too much on cities neither. There's rügen island at the north sea.

Last I have to say, don't fix too much on the big shot countries like Germany or France or Italy. For instance if you want to do the adrian coast, consider Croatia instead of the eastcoast of Italy. Italy's west coast is lovely (see your picture). Also consider lesser known countries like Slovenia or Danemark. Also some reagions of Portugal are awesome (so is the capital Lisboa).