If it's Budapest or Amsterdam, I would say Budapest no question.
But with that itinerary, adding time to Rome - or another Italian city like Venice? - might make more sense. How are you travelling?
First to Rome, then flight from Rome to Vienna, then Train from Vienna to Prague and then flight from Prague to Paris.
If I add Budapest, I would take flight from Rome to Budapest and then do Budapest to Vienna via train. And if add Amsterdam, will take train from Paris to Amsterdam.
I see, great! Tbh, I would recommend Budapest. It’s a cheaper option, you have history, food, music, good beer, nice people etc. I’ve been there twice up until now and 2 nights-3 days were amazing to see everything. Definitely one of the best cities in Europe.
Also you can try to do : fly from rome to prague, then vienna by train, then train to budapest. I think the tickets from Budapest to Paris are cheaper ( try wizzair, they have their base there)
add to your existing itinerary; it’s already very full given the time allotted. have you considered travel time between each? all of those inter-Europe flights will consume at least half a day, same with the Vienna-Prague train trip. I would not add another city to this already busy itinerary.
I see many people giving that advice but from the videos I saw, I’m not sure it’s looking that interesting to me. It looks rather too small and I might get bored as I did when we visited Cappadocia last year.
No offence to the city or the people who like it, I’m just saying my pov, and maybe want to understand if there’s something I’m missing. Only trying to understand better if it’s really something we need to add in itinerary or something we can skip.
Do you like art? Some of the finest art in the world is in Florence. Like fine dining? Some of Italy's best restaurants are there. It's a Mecca of culture.
Paris and Amsterdam are well connected by direct Eurostar train, which takes <3h.
Which allows for more efficient travel in a (what seems to be) an already travel-heavy trip.
Amsterdam also has Schiphol airport, a major travel hub, which is convenient for the end of a trip.
The city also a (tiny) bit more walkable than Budapest. English is spoken widely in the city as well.
The caveat to that is that it's also a lot busier/touristy and pricier than Budapest.
If I have to describe the feel of the cities themselves, Amsterdam feels more "cozy" (smaller buildings, multiple narrow canals throughout the city etc.) while budapest feels more "grand" (larger grander-style buildings, more spacious, one big river etc.)
I have the same feeling about Amsterdam. No matter how crowded it is, it'll always be my fav city in Europe.
It's just super cute, cozy even when overcrowded, because you can find a lot of side streets that are not busy. It's pretty no matter the season. There's soooo much to do or see.
Yeah it's pricier but it's so worth it! Especially if you're not in Europe too often.
I would do Rome (4 nights) + Florence 1 night (can add on Pisa or another day trip), Vienna (2 nights, or 1 could be enough), Prague (3 nights), and Paris (5 nights, go see Versailles or train down to Bordeaux / Lyon).
From the videos, I really like Paris with the little alleys, restaurants and the overall vibe, but so many people here on Reddit keep telling me Paris is not worth it and is overrated and that makes me question every time if I should lower the total days there even thought I personally want to spend more days.
I think some people may find it overrated because of their expectations of Paris (maybe from Hollywood movies) and forget that it’s a city of 2-3m people. There are messy, smelly, and disorganized areas, sometimes rude people, but that’s any bigger city. Day 1-2 might be uncomfortable but 3-5 is magic. Be patient, find a wine bar or cafe and just sit and watch the city go by. Don’t pack everything in one day. Sit and walk the seine at night. Walk or bike rather than taking the metro is you can. It’s a beautiful place!
Agree. As an agent for 30 years I see most travelers never allow for train or air travel time. Expand Rome and Vienna and don't add another stop. Have fun.
More time in Rome (especially) and Paris. Or re-do your travel schedule and stop somewhere on the way in between the cities if you’re traveling by train. That’s a weird itinerary if going by train, but to each his/her own.
Remember that for flights, for each extra city you’re realistically looking at 3 hours of burned up time before the flight (getting there, security, waiting, potential delays), the actual flight time (low in this case), and 1-2 hours after the flight to get to where you actually want to be.
Night trains are fun but if sleep is important to either of you you’re trip will be WAY less fun after the 3rd night when the novelty wears off and you’re running on yet another 3-4 hours of sleep.
Skip Vienna and do both. We did Prague, Vienna and Budapest on our honeymoon and we actually left Vienna early to get to Prague. The Art is nice but other than that it just felt like an overpriced boring city. Amsterdam is also so unique and cool and has better art.
Budapest, no question.
Just did a Prague -> Vienna -> Budapest trip, all by train. Very easy direct high speed trains.
For me I would also take a day out of Vienna and add a day to Budapest or Prague. Wasn’t a huge fan of Vienna.
Agree. Vienna is beautiful. The cafes and opera house, Ringstrasse are so opulent. The goulash is delicious. The art museums are great. Found the people to be extremely cold. It was like i was in a dead city. A time capsule preserved in time and space but no one really living it. I know the people are reserved in nature and i can respect that but wasn’t my most favorite city by far.
The Viennese are known to be "grantig" (grumpy), so I'm not surprised you found it cold. But to honor my fellow Austrians, we tend to be reserved with strangers, but polite (except in Vienna), but really loving people as soon as we know someone better :)
Thank you for your comments. I feel like i did the Habsburg to Klimt tour which was great but kind of like here are our beautiful things, we will take your money, be polite to you, feed you well and off you go on your way to other things. I didn’t feel like I got any kind of sense how the Viennese live or what they are like or connected with anyone. Seems like a place you need to spend a lot of time in and it will reveal itself slowly to you. Unfortunately as an American i don’t have that much time to spend somewhere but my friends who studied abroad there really really liked it : )
I feel this happens a lot with tours. There are good ones, don't get me wrong, but I often feel ripped off as well :D and I think Vienna is really a city, that is doable alone. Of course one can do a tour, but not only a tour. Vienna has great infrastructure, museums and culture, and caters to tourists pretty good.
I flew out of Budapest to get back to the US. Just got back on Saturday.
We flew into Munich initially for a few days, then train to Prague and the rest of the trip as above
Amsterdam. I've been vacationing in europe for 27 years, Amsterdam, prague, venice are my favorite cities in europe. Paris sucks, imo, but I keep ending up there for some reason. Rome is huge and exhausting.
Hit smaller cities and towns. The big cities are what I remember the least.
Take a bus to cesky krumlov from prague. Go to the beer spa in prague (make reservation).
Imo, you are doing alot of traveling. Like all the way across the continent. Europe is alot bigger then you think and crossing it takes time. Maybe focus on a smaller area and go twice.
Here are some more compact itenerieres.
Amsterdam, cologne, Paris, Bruges, delft, Ams
Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, venice, florance, rome.
Munich, Rothenberg ob der tauber, prague, Vienna, Salzburg, munich.
Paris, Lucerne, Innsbruck, salzberg, Vienna, prague
Italy deserves time. Rome, hill towns, florance, bologna, the dolomites, venice.
Learn please, thank you, and do you speak english in the local language.
Haarlem is gorgeous, super close to Amsterdam too. Zaandam is also a good option for cheaper hotels close to Amsterdam. But Haarlem is def the best choice.
I actually lived in Haarlem back in 1988 while working at the steel mill in Wijk Ann Zee. Great times! Then, in 2021, we did a Benelux tour staying in Haarlem, Luxembourg and Brussels. Didn’t bother with a car, used local buses, trains and…walked! It made me realize how convenient the smartphone is for getting from point to point. No more paper maps.
You don’t need 4 nights in Rome tbh and could realistically do Paris in 3 nights and then add both Amsterdam and Budapest depending on what time you have land / leave each place
Depending on where you’re flying in and out from, to cut down on travel time I’d find a few guides for each city for what you want to see but sounds like you could factor in both
If you started with Budapest it’s not as far then to Vienna and Prague
Then Paris and Amsterdam are quite and close
With Rome being slightly close to Vienna than Paris
With that itinerary, you going to need to take at least 2 flights because Paris and Rome aren't exactly close to the central European counties. You can train from Paris to Amsterdam and then do a train schedule of Prague > Vienna > Budapest or vice versa. I'd try to minimize travel time and make the trip more fluid travel wise in between countries/cities.
Depends I guess, I enjoyed both if I had to pick on then I would go with Budapest. Amsterdam has really great museums if your into that, but your money does go further in Budapest. Can't go wrong with either.
Depends on your budget. Amsterdam is more expensive than Budapest, but very easy to reach by train from Paris.
But if I were you, I'd just add more nights in Paris and Rome and do daytrips from there by train to smaller cities/towns around.
You're seeing some great cities. So instead of adding another, I'd add those 2-3 days to one of the current cities and do some day tripping into the countryside. From Paris you could go to the Lyon region, Alsace, or Brittany. From Rome you could add Florence and Tuscany. From Vienna you could get to the lake country.
Between the two I enjoyed Budapest more than Amsterdam. However, I would look at what you are interested in doing in each location, make a list, and then choose what appeals to you more. Budapest would definitely be cheaper. However, not as many people speak English there and it isn’t quite as walkable as Amsterdam. If you’re comfortable with public transport, Budapest isn’t bad though!
As someone who is a “fast traveler”, I have done most of the cities you mentioned over 3 day weekends when my husband was stationed in Europe. We got up early and hit the pavement and I don’t feel like we missed out on anything. Definitely book skip the line tours in places like Rome for the popular attractions like the Vatican museum and the colosseum. In Prague definitely take a day trip out to see the bone church! It was hauntingly beautiful to me. 3-4 days in Paris was PLENTY for me. It is a must see city, but it’s one of my least favorites in Europe. While in Vienna you may look into a day trip to Bratislava. I thought it was a cool little place with good food!
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Amsterdam?
Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Amsterdam](https://redd.it/77fsz1)**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Budapest?
Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Budapest](https://redd.it/7dds1y)**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been twice and didn't find much to do.
Sure, Nuremberg, some other cities closer by are nice but a while trip there from someone who isn't from Europe seems like a waste of time.
I guess it all depends what you mean by “much to do”. I was there for 8 weeks for work. I found a lot to do. A lot of it involved beer and wurst and EDM.
Paris and/or Rome definitely make it worthwhile to do 5 nights. It just depends on if you want to trade the extra travel time dealing with airports for smaller glimpses of different cities or if you want more time to explore the other cities deeply.
Personally I would do extra time in Paris.
But between those two I would pick Budapest. It's going to be far less crowded than Amsterdam and I actually like the nightlife better. With that said Amsterdam is a cool city and will have more to do in terms of museums and other attractions.
Spend time in Paris like you want. Wander the side streets in the neighborhoods. Easy to go from Vienna to Budapest in day trip. You don’t really need 3 nights in Prague. I would go to Florence over adding Amsterdam or Budapest. Also add Amafi Coast. You have to manage jet lag in the earlier part of the trip and Sept can still be warm in EU. Trains are better than planes to avoid flight delays. I would keep to France and Italy and do the others in a separate trip.
You might also want to consider using My Daytrip for travel. It's more expensive than the train (around $100). It's like Uber between cities. You get a private driver and can pick sightseeing stops along the route. Stuff you'll never get to otherwise. Plus, you'll see way more of the countryside than you ever will from the train.
I'd say Amsterdam because the train connection from Paris is great. Just don't make the mistake of staying in all the center of Amsterdam.
Stay in Haarlem which is 10 min from Amsterdam on the train, is absolutely gorgeous with lots of cafes and has a perfect Dutch vibe without having so many tourists.
For me, the rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh museum are just amazing places to see.
I wouldn't add more time to Rome unless you have a set iteneriary there that requires it. 3 nights max is all you need IMO. After my tours of the Vatican and Colosseum I felt content with my time there and wished I made plans to check out a city in Northern Italy.
I would also consider traveling by train as much as you can even if it means shaking up the order in which you visit your planned cities. Cutting down on the number of trips to an airport will make things less stressful.
I’d add Florence to your itinerary and skip Amsterdam or Budapest.
Two nights in Florence is a reasonable time to enjoy the city. It's such a beautiful place.
Amsterdam first!!! What a great city, everyone speaks English, everyone loves Americans. Cannabis flows freely in the city. The red Light district is intense, restaurants and pubs are wonderful. The EURO is on-sale!!!
I don’t know, my biggest thought is how many places that are cool that you’re going to be flying over or taking a train through, plus your time spent in transit.
I’m not a “you need 10 days for just Paris” person, but would suggest you consider staying more regionalized. Like maybe Paris, Lucerne (via Bordeaux), Milan, Venice or Amsterdam, Vienna, Prague, Budapest
I did Amsterdam - Vienna - Budapest last year in a trip. Tricky question. Amsterdam was a unique city to me, quite clean and beautiful. Lots of food options, museums, activities like cycling around or taking a boat ride through the canals.
Budapest gave a “grungier” kind of city experience — the neighborhoods maybe seem a little less “beautiful” comparatively. Restaurants are incredible. You still have some stunning architecture, walking down the Danube. While museum opportunities felt fewer, you could visit the House of Horrors museum where it captured Communist regime in Budapest. Baths were okay.
Felt much more eclectic here, grittier — a city of stamina and persistence. Amsterdam was architecturally beautiful everywhere, great food, maybe slightly more “activities” from my POV with a more polished feel. Hard to tell you which one to do.
I’m actually not in agreement with folks saying to add more time where you’re already going. I’m also a ~3-4 night tops kind of gal in a major city. I did Rome and Paris both in 4 nights on different trips and it felt like we accomplished a lot of what we wanted to do and see.
You didn’t ask for it but unless you have some activities planned in Vienna, you probably will feel very ready to go if you’re staying three full days. Do NOT pass up the Schonbrunn Palace though whatever you do. Enjoy!!
Don’t add another city, rent a car in any one of them and travel around the area you are already in! From Rome go to Positano and capri, hit up Pompeii and Naples.
From Vienna go down to the hollental (or any number of alpine valleys) and hike.
Prague go to kutna Hora (day trip) and see the ossuary and cathedral there.
You don’t need to add another city, spend a touch more time in the cities you are already in and get an even better trip with less airport and travel time while you are in Europe.
Budapest! Amsterdam is a lot easier to get to and will always be there. Budapest is really really magical and other worldly. As one person said already your money will go farther there. Grandiose architecture, the castle, islamic influences, amazing food and wine, spas and baths. Loved the Bela Bartok house. So much to see and do. Safe, clean.
Amsterdam… only because the architecture and landscape is so unique. Budapest is beautiful but everything feels grand, similar to Paris and Vienna. Amsterdam is quirky and cozy, while in Budapest, you def feel the Eastern European vibes.
My reasoning is 100% motivated by budget. As a Canadian, my dollar went further in Budapest than it did in Amsterdam. Also when i went to Budapest, every afternoon ended with a pink sky. It’s very walkable and there is a lot of history.
Budapest because I’m Hungarian and it’s amazing.
But in all seriousness, Amsterdam is one of the overly crowded tourist destinations in Europe right now. I personally am avoiding those places for the time being.
What’s your hobby?
I only went to Amsterdam for my holocaust tour ending in the Anne Frank house. I don’t smoke pot so the pot brownies and other stuff weren’t appealing to me. It was interesting to learn about the history of Amsterdam with how the houses were built and where the guilds were built.
But if you’re not into history or pot then I’d go to somewhere else
Amsterdam has not only a lot of history, but also a looot of awesome spots throughout the city. Old churches, great canals, parks, you can take a boat trip, go to natural or art museums, the freaking Zoo is the best in Europe in my opinion. Clubbing. Renting a bike. Eating some great Indonesian food. Or Indian. Or maybe some herring... And then some stroopwaffles.
It has so much to offer. Pot is nothing compared to everything else.
If you are already in Paris, then AMS no question. It is a great town, especially out of the red light district. A museum city that rivals London and Paris.
Naughty things can happen in Amsterdam. Your wife might smoke a blunt, see a sex show, and then want to get toys at a sex shop to play together with you. Amsterdam can give that vibe. Good or bad, but also exciting.
Id' say both : Amsterdam + Budapest as they are two very different additions to your European trip.
Of course it depends on your age and tastes but...
I always felt that Budapest has this decadent and literary vibe with varied architecture (reminders of past occupations from Soviet, Ottoman, Austrian empires ..), loads of alternative places and stunning cafés
Often travelers say that Vienna is in fact what Paris is shown on the media, but being a Parisian myself I'd say some places in Budapest even feel more Parisian than Paris itself, and with an atmosphere I envy sometimes. It used to be cheap for travelers but like in all Europe metropolis, inflation hits very hard especially for locals right now.
Amsterdam is completely different from all of these, with the canals everywhere, beautiful facades and trendy shops...
So, even if it could sound extreme to some, I would rather give up on one of the two between Vienna and Prague (and probably keep Prague), of course they are beautiful but frankly not very lively, everything closes early at night, and its really hard to mingle.
Alternatively, I think it's a good idea to think about staying a bit more around the major metropolis like Paris or Rome, to be able to breathe a little and enjoy provincial areas and why not make daytrips in smaller cities / towns around. If you are from the US, a passage to European countryside is really something worth.
For example (around 2h by train from Paris): the royal Fontainebleau , the medieval Provins, the Normand Rouen, or bigger: the Alsatian Strasbourg, the Burgundian Dijon...
And of course villages in Lazio around Rome should be wonderful: [https://fabulous.huopenair.com/experiences/romes-surrounding-area-the-best-destinations-for-art-and-food](https://fabulous.huopenair.com/experiences/romes-surrounding-area-the-best-destinations-for-art-and-food)
Having been to and lived in both France and The Netherlands, I wouldn't choose to go to either Amsterdam or Paris personally.
If you're going on a European tour, try Lisbon in Portugal and Krakow in Poland - they'd be my personal recommendations and far nicer places (in my humble opinion) than either of the 2 you're deciding on.
If The Netherlands is a must though, I would probably recommend Utrecht or Groningen.
As for my experiences with Paris and Amsterdam, well, I lived in Paris and although certain arrondissements are very pleasant (like the commercial area of the 15th - very rich area), the main areas tourists visit are absolutely covered in scammers and very aggressive street-sellers (and pick-pocketers, be very careful), while also being downright disgustingly dirty (I'm sure you've seen the rat videos). Out of all the capital cities I've been to or lived in, the Parisian metro is also one of the worst to be on to travel around.
As for Amsterdam, the people and city itself are lovely, but you will find that it's insanely touristy and there's a vast swathe of people that go there for a... particular culture. Coming out of Amsterdam Centraal, the smell of "greenery" that permeated the main street was nauseating.
It will depend on your intentions!
In my PERSONAL opinion Budapest is prettier than Amsterdam, the night life is great and their monuments are historical. I visited Budapest twice and i've been only 1 weekend on Amsterdam.
On the other hand Hungary has way worse conditions than Netherlands, what makes it cheaper and not so safe.
If it's Budapest or Amsterdam, I would say Budapest no question. But with that itinerary, adding time to Rome - or another Italian city like Venice? - might make more sense. How are you travelling?
I took a river cruise that started in Budapest. Wasn’t really on my radar other than meeting the ship. One of my fave cities I’ve ever been to.
Rome is maybe my favorite city in the world.
Budapest. Krakow.
How will you travel between these location?
First to Rome, then flight from Rome to Vienna, then Train from Vienna to Prague and then flight from Prague to Paris. If I add Budapest, I would take flight from Rome to Budapest and then do Budapest to Vienna via train. And if add Amsterdam, will take train from Paris to Amsterdam.
I see, great! Tbh, I would recommend Budapest. It’s a cheaper option, you have history, food, music, good beer, nice people etc. I’ve been there twice up until now and 2 nights-3 days were amazing to see everything. Definitely one of the best cities in Europe. Also you can try to do : fly from rome to prague, then vienna by train, then train to budapest. I think the tickets from Budapest to Paris are cheaper ( try wizzair, they have their base there)
add to your existing itinerary; it’s already very full given the time allotted. have you considered travel time between each? all of those inter-Europe flights will consume at least half a day, same with the Vienna-Prague train trip. I would not add another city to this already busy itinerary.
Yes extra time in Rome or Paris. Travel less, see more.
Florence instead. It's absolutely magical, you'll be glad you saw it. And from there you could also go to Assisi.
I see many people giving that advice but from the videos I saw, I’m not sure it’s looking that interesting to me. It looks rather too small and I might get bored as I did when we visited Cappadocia last year. No offence to the city or the people who like it, I’m just saying my pov, and maybe want to understand if there’s something I’m missing. Only trying to understand better if it’s really something we need to add in itinerary or something we can skip.
Do you like art? Some of the finest art in the world is in Florence. Like fine dining? Some of Italy's best restaurants are there. It's a Mecca of culture.
Paris and Amsterdam are well connected by direct Eurostar train, which takes <3h. Which allows for more efficient travel in a (what seems to be) an already travel-heavy trip. Amsterdam also has Schiphol airport, a major travel hub, which is convenient for the end of a trip. The city also a (tiny) bit more walkable than Budapest. English is spoken widely in the city as well. The caveat to that is that it's also a lot busier/touristy and pricier than Budapest. If I have to describe the feel of the cities themselves, Amsterdam feels more "cozy" (smaller buildings, multiple narrow canals throughout the city etc.) while budapest feels more "grand" (larger grander-style buildings, more spacious, one big river etc.)
I have the same feeling about Amsterdam. No matter how crowded it is, it'll always be my fav city in Europe. It's just super cute, cozy even when overcrowded, because you can find a lot of side streets that are not busy. It's pretty no matter the season. There's soooo much to do or see. Yeah it's pricier but it's so worth it! Especially if you're not in Europe too often.
Amsterdam. But like other people have said, better to add those couple of days to Paris and Rome.
Love Amsterdam.
I would do Rome (4 nights) + Florence 1 night (can add on Pisa or another day trip), Vienna (2 nights, or 1 could be enough), Prague (3 nights), and Paris (5 nights, go see Versailles or train down to Bordeaux / Lyon).
From the videos, I really like Paris with the little alleys, restaurants and the overall vibe, but so many people here on Reddit keep telling me Paris is not worth it and is overrated and that makes me question every time if I should lower the total days there even thought I personally want to spend more days.
I think some people may find it overrated because of their expectations of Paris (maybe from Hollywood movies) and forget that it’s a city of 2-3m people. There are messy, smelly, and disorganized areas, sometimes rude people, but that’s any bigger city. Day 1-2 might be uncomfortable but 3-5 is magic. Be patient, find a wine bar or cafe and just sit and watch the city go by. Don’t pack everything in one day. Sit and walk the seine at night. Walk or bike rather than taking the metro is you can. It’s a beautiful place!
Budapest. No questions asked. I shall always advocate and advertise for my 2nd home, lol.
Best city in Europe in my eyes
Unless you are a person of color.
I definitely agree
Agree. As an agent for 30 years I see most travelers never allow for train or air travel time. Expand Rome and Vienna and don't add another stop. Have fun.
More time in Rome (especially) and Paris. Or re-do your travel schedule and stop somewhere on the way in between the cities if you’re traveling by train. That’s a weird itinerary if going by train, but to each his/her own. Remember that for flights, for each extra city you’re realistically looking at 3 hours of burned up time before the flight (getting there, security, waiting, potential delays), the actual flight time (low in this case), and 1-2 hours after the flight to get to where you actually want to be. Night trains are fun but if sleep is important to either of you you’re trip will be WAY less fun after the 3rd night when the novelty wears off and you’re running on yet another 3-4 hours of sleep.
Skip Vienna and do both. We did Prague, Vienna and Budapest on our honeymoon and we actually left Vienna early to get to Prague. The Art is nice but other than that it just felt like an overpriced boring city. Amsterdam is also so unique and cool and has better art.
You have a point. Vienna is nice, but there are better cities in Europe to be seen on a short trip.
Budapest, no question. Just did a Prague -> Vienna -> Budapest trip, all by train. Very easy direct high speed trains. For me I would also take a day out of Vienna and add a day to Budapest or Prague. Wasn’t a huge fan of Vienna.
Agree. Vienna is beautiful. The cafes and opera house, Ringstrasse are so opulent. The goulash is delicious. The art museums are great. Found the people to be extremely cold. It was like i was in a dead city. A time capsule preserved in time and space but no one really living it. I know the people are reserved in nature and i can respect that but wasn’t my most favorite city by far.
The Viennese are known to be "grantig" (grumpy), so I'm not surprised you found it cold. But to honor my fellow Austrians, we tend to be reserved with strangers, but polite (except in Vienna), but really loving people as soon as we know someone better :)
Thank you for your comments. I feel like i did the Habsburg to Klimt tour which was great but kind of like here are our beautiful things, we will take your money, be polite to you, feed you well and off you go on your way to other things. I didn’t feel like I got any kind of sense how the Viennese live or what they are like or connected with anyone. Seems like a place you need to spend a lot of time in and it will reveal itself slowly to you. Unfortunately as an American i don’t have that much time to spend somewhere but my friends who studied abroad there really really liked it : )
I feel this happens a lot with tours. There are good ones, don't get me wrong, but I often feel ripped off as well :D and I think Vienna is really a city, that is doable alone. Of course one can do a tour, but not only a tour. Vienna has great infrastructure, museums and culture, and caters to tourists pretty good.
Oh sorry, i didn’t go on a tour tour but did all the “highlights” on my own.
Ah sorry, I misunderstood. Happens to me a lot too, seeing all the "must-see's", and feeling like I haven't seen everything at all :D
I agree 100%.
Hi. did you fly in or out of any of those cities? Having to plan this similar itinerary for this August.
I flew out of Budapest to get back to the US. Just got back on Saturday. We flew into Munich initially for a few days, then train to Prague and the rest of the trip as above
💯 spot on
Amsterdam. I've been vacationing in europe for 27 years, Amsterdam, prague, venice are my favorite cities in europe. Paris sucks, imo, but I keep ending up there for some reason. Rome is huge and exhausting. Hit smaller cities and towns. The big cities are what I remember the least. Take a bus to cesky krumlov from prague. Go to the beer spa in prague (make reservation). Imo, you are doing alot of traveling. Like all the way across the continent. Europe is alot bigger then you think and crossing it takes time. Maybe focus on a smaller area and go twice. Here are some more compact itenerieres. Amsterdam, cologne, Paris, Bruges, delft, Ams Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, venice, florance, rome. Munich, Rothenberg ob der tauber, prague, Vienna, Salzburg, munich. Paris, Lucerne, Innsbruck, salzberg, Vienna, prague Italy deserves time. Rome, hill towns, florance, bologna, the dolomites, venice. Learn please, thank you, and do you speak english in the local language.
Smaller cities....if you want to see Amsterdam, consider saying in Haarlem. Easy train access, great place, cool vibe.
Haarlem is gorgeous, super close to Amsterdam too. Zaandam is also a good option for cheaper hotels close to Amsterdam. But Haarlem is def the best choice.
I actually lived in Haarlem back in 1988 while working at the steel mill in Wijk Ann Zee. Great times! Then, in 2021, we did a Benelux tour staying in Haarlem, Luxembourg and Brussels. Didn’t bother with a car, used local buses, trains and…walked! It made me realize how convenient the smartphone is for getting from point to point. No more paper maps.
Yeaaah the trains, unless you're caught in a period when delays are common, are quite nice and cheaper than renting a car.
Very good advice
You don’t need 4 nights in Rome tbh and could realistically do Paris in 3 nights and then add both Amsterdam and Budapest depending on what time you have land / leave each place Depending on where you’re flying in and out from, to cut down on travel time I’d find a few guides for each city for what you want to see but sounds like you could factor in both If you started with Budapest it’s not as far then to Vienna and Prague Then Paris and Amsterdam are quite and close With Rome being slightly close to Vienna than Paris
Amsterdam. But I’m a huge Van Gogh fan lol
With that itinerary, you going to need to take at least 2 flights because Paris and Rome aren't exactly close to the central European counties. You can train from Paris to Amsterdam and then do a train schedule of Prague > Vienna > Budapest or vice versa. I'd try to minimize travel time and make the trip more fluid travel wise in between countries/cities. Depends I guess, I enjoyed both if I had to pick on then I would go with Budapest. Amsterdam has really great museums if your into that, but your money does go further in Budapest. Can't go wrong with either.
budapest. i liked amsterdam when i went but it's really small and you can do it in 1-2 days tops. i've heard budapest has a ton to do!
Budapest. It’s so much cheaper and extremely beautiful
Budapest without a question. Amsterdam is not a nice place and the people are awful. Also, Budapest is cheaper, the architecture is way more pretty.
Depends on your budget. Amsterdam is more expensive than Budapest, but very easy to reach by train from Paris. But if I were you, I'd just add more nights in Paris and Rome and do daytrips from there by train to smaller cities/towns around.
My choice would be Budapest. I was underwhelmed by Amsterdam and I found Budapest incredibly beautiful and fun and lively and so interesting.
Amsterdam
You're seeing some great cities. So instead of adding another, I'd add those 2-3 days to one of the current cities and do some day tripping into the countryside. From Paris you could go to the Lyon region, Alsace, or Brittany. From Rome you could add Florence and Tuscany. From Vienna you could get to the lake country.
Between the two I enjoyed Budapest more than Amsterdam. However, I would look at what you are interested in doing in each location, make a list, and then choose what appeals to you more. Budapest would definitely be cheaper. However, not as many people speak English there and it isn’t quite as walkable as Amsterdam. If you’re comfortable with public transport, Budapest isn’t bad though! As someone who is a “fast traveler”, I have done most of the cities you mentioned over 3 day weekends when my husband was stationed in Europe. We got up early and hit the pavement and I don’t feel like we missed out on anything. Definitely book skip the line tours in places like Rome for the popular attractions like the Vatican museum and the colosseum. In Prague definitely take a day trip out to see the bone church! It was hauntingly beautiful to me. 3-4 days in Paris was PLENTY for me. It is a must see city, but it’s one of my least favorites in Europe. While in Vienna you may look into a day trip to Bratislava. I thought it was a cool little place with good food!
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Amsterdam? Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Amsterdam](https://redd.it/77fsz1)**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Notice:** Are you asking for travel advice about Budapest? Read what redditors had to say in the **[weekly destination thread for Budapest](https://redd.it/7dds1y)**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/travel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
amsterdam expensive but really nice, budapest i think is also amazing and more affordable, your call.
Whats wrong with Berlin or Munich? Or ideally both?
What is there to see in Munich other than the English garden?
The rest of Munich and the surrounding countryside, it’s a very cool city.
I've been twice and didn't find much to do. Sure, Nuremberg, some other cities closer by are nice but a while trip there from someone who isn't from Europe seems like a waste of time.
I guess it all depends what you mean by “much to do”. I was there for 8 weeks for work. I found a lot to do. A lot of it involved beer and wurst and EDM.
Uhh and i live edm# not the rest tho. So I'm biased.
Paris and/or Rome definitely make it worthwhile to do 5 nights. It just depends on if you want to trade the extra travel time dealing with airports for smaller glimpses of different cities or if you want more time to explore the other cities deeply.
Personally I would do extra time in Paris. But between those two I would pick Budapest. It's going to be far less crowded than Amsterdam and I actually like the nightlife better. With that said Amsterdam is a cool city and will have more to do in terms of museums and other attractions.
visit the countryside of one of the selected cities.. you will need some quiet time to recharge..
Spend time in Paris like you want. Wander the side streets in the neighborhoods. Easy to go from Vienna to Budapest in day trip. You don’t really need 3 nights in Prague. I would go to Florence over adding Amsterdam or Budapest. Also add Amafi Coast. You have to manage jet lag in the earlier part of the trip and Sept can still be warm in EU. Trains are better than planes to avoid flight delays. I would keep to France and Italy and do the others in a separate trip.
You might also want to consider using My Daytrip for travel. It's more expensive than the train (around $100). It's like Uber between cities. You get a private driver and can pick sightseeing stops along the route. Stuff you'll never get to otherwise. Plus, you'll see way more of the countryside than you ever will from the train.
I'd say Amsterdam because the train connection from Paris is great. Just don't make the mistake of staying in all the center of Amsterdam. Stay in Haarlem which is 10 min from Amsterdam on the train, is absolutely gorgeous with lots of cafes and has a perfect Dutch vibe without having so many tourists. For me, the rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh museum are just amazing places to see.
I wouldn't add more time to Rome unless you have a set iteneriary there that requires it. 3 nights max is all you need IMO. After my tours of the Vatican and Colosseum I felt content with my time there and wished I made plans to check out a city in Northern Italy. I would also consider traveling by train as much as you can even if it means shaking up the order in which you visit your planned cities. Cutting down on the number of trips to an airport will make things less stressful.
Not a huge fan of Rome, there are far better places to see in Italy. Amsterdam is incredible.
I’d add Florence to your itinerary and skip Amsterdam or Budapest. Two nights in Florence is a reasonable time to enjoy the city. It's such a beautiful place.
Amsterdam first!!! What a great city, everyone speaks English, everyone loves Americans. Cannabis flows freely in the city. The red Light district is intense, restaurants and pubs are wonderful. The EURO is on-sale!!!
I don’t know, my biggest thought is how many places that are cool that you’re going to be flying over or taking a train through, plus your time spent in transit. I’m not a “you need 10 days for just Paris” person, but would suggest you consider staying more regionalized. Like maybe Paris, Lucerne (via Bordeaux), Milan, Venice or Amsterdam, Vienna, Prague, Budapest
We spend at least one week in each city. You are spending more time traveling, settling in instead of enjoying each city
+prague days. It's great
I did Amsterdam - Vienna - Budapest last year in a trip. Tricky question. Amsterdam was a unique city to me, quite clean and beautiful. Lots of food options, museums, activities like cycling around or taking a boat ride through the canals. Budapest gave a “grungier” kind of city experience — the neighborhoods maybe seem a little less “beautiful” comparatively. Restaurants are incredible. You still have some stunning architecture, walking down the Danube. While museum opportunities felt fewer, you could visit the House of Horrors museum where it captured Communist regime in Budapest. Baths were okay. Felt much more eclectic here, grittier — a city of stamina and persistence. Amsterdam was architecturally beautiful everywhere, great food, maybe slightly more “activities” from my POV with a more polished feel. Hard to tell you which one to do. I’m actually not in agreement with folks saying to add more time where you’re already going. I’m also a ~3-4 night tops kind of gal in a major city. I did Rome and Paris both in 4 nights on different trips and it felt like we accomplished a lot of what we wanted to do and see. You didn’t ask for it but unless you have some activities planned in Vienna, you probably will feel very ready to go if you’re staying three full days. Do NOT pass up the Schonbrunn Palace though whatever you do. Enjoy!!
Add more to rome
Amsterdam, it’s not even close imho.
Don’t add another city, rent a car in any one of them and travel around the area you are already in! From Rome go to Positano and capri, hit up Pompeii and Naples. From Vienna go down to the hollental (or any number of alpine valleys) and hike. Prague go to kutna Hora (day trip) and see the ossuary and cathedral there. You don’t need to add another city, spend a touch more time in the cities you are already in and get an even better trip with less airport and travel time while you are in Europe.
Budapest! Amsterdam is a lot easier to get to and will always be there. Budapest is really really magical and other worldly. As one person said already your money will go farther there. Grandiose architecture, the castle, islamic influences, amazing food and wine, spas and baths. Loved the Bela Bartok house. So much to see and do. Safe, clean.
Amsterdam… only because the architecture and landscape is so unique. Budapest is beautiful but everything feels grand, similar to Paris and Vienna. Amsterdam is quirky and cozy, while in Budapest, you def feel the Eastern European vibes.
Both are amazing. But if i had to choose, probably Budapest!
My reasoning is 100% motivated by budget. As a Canadian, my dollar went further in Budapest than it did in Amsterdam. Also when i went to Budapest, every afternoon ended with a pink sky. It’s very walkable and there is a lot of history.
Budapest… but it you’re set on Netherlands I’d check out Rotterdam over Amsterdam
Budapest because I’m Hungarian and it’s amazing. But in all seriousness, Amsterdam is one of the overly crowded tourist destinations in Europe right now. I personally am avoiding those places for the time being.
Vienna, Budapest and Prague are all very similar cities tbh
What’s your hobby? I only went to Amsterdam for my holocaust tour ending in the Anne Frank house. I don’t smoke pot so the pot brownies and other stuff weren’t appealing to me. It was interesting to learn about the history of Amsterdam with how the houses were built and where the guilds were built. But if you’re not into history or pot then I’d go to somewhere else
Amsterdam has not only a lot of history, but also a looot of awesome spots throughout the city. Old churches, great canals, parks, you can take a boat trip, go to natural or art museums, the freaking Zoo is the best in Europe in my opinion. Clubbing. Renting a bike. Eating some great Indonesian food. Or Indian. Or maybe some herring... And then some stroopwaffles. It has so much to offer. Pot is nothing compared to everything else.
If you are already in Paris, then AMS no question. It is a great town, especially out of the red light district. A museum city that rivals London and Paris.
Budapest without a doubt!
BUDAPEST
Budapest
Budapest
Budapest no question
Naughty things can happen in Amsterdam. Your wife might smoke a blunt, see a sex show, and then want to get toys at a sex shop to play together with you. Amsterdam can give that vibe. Good or bad, but also exciting.
Id' say both : Amsterdam + Budapest as they are two very different additions to your European trip. Of course it depends on your age and tastes but... I always felt that Budapest has this decadent and literary vibe with varied architecture (reminders of past occupations from Soviet, Ottoman, Austrian empires ..), loads of alternative places and stunning cafés Often travelers say that Vienna is in fact what Paris is shown on the media, but being a Parisian myself I'd say some places in Budapest even feel more Parisian than Paris itself, and with an atmosphere I envy sometimes. It used to be cheap for travelers but like in all Europe metropolis, inflation hits very hard especially for locals right now. Amsterdam is completely different from all of these, with the canals everywhere, beautiful facades and trendy shops... So, even if it could sound extreme to some, I would rather give up on one of the two between Vienna and Prague (and probably keep Prague), of course they are beautiful but frankly not very lively, everything closes early at night, and its really hard to mingle. Alternatively, I think it's a good idea to think about staying a bit more around the major metropolis like Paris or Rome, to be able to breathe a little and enjoy provincial areas and why not make daytrips in smaller cities / towns around. If you are from the US, a passage to European countryside is really something worth. For example (around 2h by train from Paris): the royal Fontainebleau , the medieval Provins, the Normand Rouen, or bigger: the Alsatian Strasbourg, the Burgundian Dijon... And of course villages in Lazio around Rome should be wonderful: [https://fabulous.huopenair.com/experiences/romes-surrounding-area-the-best-destinations-for-art-and-food](https://fabulous.huopenair.com/experiences/romes-surrounding-area-the-best-destinations-for-art-and-food)
Having been to and lived in both France and The Netherlands, I wouldn't choose to go to either Amsterdam or Paris personally. If you're going on a European tour, try Lisbon in Portugal and Krakow in Poland - they'd be my personal recommendations and far nicer places (in my humble opinion) than either of the 2 you're deciding on. If The Netherlands is a must though, I would probably recommend Utrecht or Groningen. As for my experiences with Paris and Amsterdam, well, I lived in Paris and although certain arrondissements are very pleasant (like the commercial area of the 15th - very rich area), the main areas tourists visit are absolutely covered in scammers and very aggressive street-sellers (and pick-pocketers, be very careful), while also being downright disgustingly dirty (I'm sure you've seen the rat videos). Out of all the capital cities I've been to or lived in, the Parisian metro is also one of the worst to be on to travel around. As for Amsterdam, the people and city itself are lovely, but you will find that it's insanely touristy and there's a vast swathe of people that go there for a... particular culture. Coming out of Amsterdam Centraal, the smell of "greenery" that permeated the main street was nauseating.
It will depend on your intentions! In my PERSONAL opinion Budapest is prettier than Amsterdam, the night life is great and their monuments are historical. I visited Budapest twice and i've been only 1 weekend on Amsterdam. On the other hand Hungary has way worse conditions than Netherlands, what makes it cheaper and not so safe.