Adler's European Backpacking Extravaganza....

[+ nycman]

Since the thread in Escort Travels on Scott's Fall European Backpacking trip is being censored, I figured I'd start a new thread to discuss the topic here....

 

In my younger days, I was addicted to backpacking around Europe. Simply put, I believe it is the most educational thing a young American adult can do. Here are my pointers/opinions on Scott’s itinerary:

 

>Here is a VERY tentative schedule:

 

>London 2 - 7

A good place to start your adventure. No language problems and generally they like Americans. 5 days is a long time on a whirlwind tour though. In even the biggest cities, you’ll get bored in 3 days. The rest of Europe is calling.... keep moving! First hint…hit the big cities/capitals on the weekends when the nightlife is hopping.

 

>Brussels 8 - 10

Excellent beer. Not much else. 2 days is generous.

 

>Amsterdam 11 - 14

Not one of my personal favorites. I find it all kind of depressing. Nice people and they speak better "American" than we do. Amazing Museums. 2 days max.

 

>Berlin 15 - 17

So much has changed. The air of excitement and transformation has slowly started to cool, but it's still one of the hottest places in Europe. If German boys are your thing…you’ll be in heaven. Second hint…the American GI fantasy drives Berlin boys wild.

 

>Prague 18 – 21

Old Europe the way you THINK it should look. Grungy and pristine at the same time. Not that much to do and see though. Get a taste of Eastern Europe and keep moving!

 

>Vienna 22 – 24

One of my favorite European cities. A bit provincial compared to Berlin, but it’s the city I return to over and over again when I need a break from touring.

 

>Zurich 25 – 27

Switzerland…kind of like dancers at the Gaiety. Expensive and beautiful to look at…but boring. Sing songs from the “Sound of Music” while climbing to nowhere…and move on!

 

>Paris 28 – 2

“No one’s been to Paris of the first time ‘til you’ve been to Paris for the first time”. Do it all and have fun.

 

>Barcelona 3 – 5

Funky and the ENTIRE country runs 2 hours behind schedule. After 2 days you’ll be dreaming of those wonderful days of anal Swiss punctuality.

 

>Cannes 6 – 7

Unless you’ve got a movie premier to attend….this town is pointless.

 

>Milan 8 – 10

Friends with Armani?…if not…skip it…it’s a boring and ugly garment town.

 

Venice 11 – 13

Smells bad. Not that much to do and see. If you have to choose…go to Florence instead.

 

Rome 14 – 17

Loads of fun. Tons to see and do, but 3 days is plenty.

 

So there you have it. My brief and biased opinions on a whirlwind backpacking trip of Europe. You need at least another 1 ½ months to get it all in. Munich…Istanbul…Greece….Oslo…there’s loads more to see! Finally, my best advice is to ignore mine and everyone else’s. Don’t get too hung up on any itinerary. Just go and have fun.

 

Get a passport, a backpack, a Eurail Pass, and a copy of “Let’s Go”. That’s all you really need. If you meet up with someone cool who suggests you head for Amsterdam together…but you were planning on going to Brussels that day...forget your itinerary and go where the fun is. One of my favorite memories is waking up in Salzburg one morning and thinking “I’ve always wanted to see Paris”…and spontaneously getting on a train 30 min later with the man of my dreams to head for Paris. You’ll never have this much freedom again. Enjoy it.

 

And if you happen to pass through NYC on your way….I’ll make sure you get a good American send off….grin

[OneFinger]

>Vienna 22 – 24

>One of my favorite European cities. A bit provincial compared

>to Berlin, but it’s the city I return to over and over again

>when I need a break from touring.

 

Totally agree!! Lots to see and do.

 

>Zurich 25 – 27

>Switzerland…kind of like dancers at the Gaiety. Expensive and

>beautiful to look at…but boring. Sing songs from the “Sound of

>Music” while climbing to nowhere…and move on!

 

Another great observation. Worth seeing once but don't waste too much time here.

 

>Paris 28 – 2

>“No one’s been to Paris of the first time ‘til you’ve been to

>Paris for the first time”. Do it all and have fun.

 

I couldn't get out of Paris fast enough! Saw all the tourist sites in a couple of days and it was time to go. I found the people very unfriendly and HATED the time I was there. I'd rather have a prostrate exam by a female doctor than spend another day in Paris.

 

>Barcelona 3 – 5

>Funky and the ENTIRE country runs 2 hours behind schedule.

>After 2 days you’ll be dreaming of those wonderful days of

>anal Swiss punctuality.

 

Another great observation. I found Spain very frustrating. And save your money and avoid the bull fights. It was NOT a pretty sight.

 

>Venice 11 – 13

>Smells bad. Not that much to do and see. If you have to

>choose…go to Florence instead.

 

Were we on the same tour?!?

 

If you have the time, go to Venice. But it's a real disappointment when compared to Florence.

 

>Rome 14 – 17

>Loads of fun. Tons to see and do, but 3 days is plenty.

 

This is where is disagree. I could spend a whole week in Rome and not be bored.

 

>Munich…Istanbul…Greece….Oslo…there’s loads more to see!

 

One of the most moving experiences I've ever had was visiting the concentration camp in Dahulu (near Munich). It is something that has haunted me but an experience I'll never forget. It is one of those MUST DO things.

 

While Athens is nice, I really perfered to visit the non-tourist areas of Greece. I liked going to the out-of-the-way places and seeing Greece in the eyes of a native (and not a tourist).

 

>Get a passport, a backpack, a Eurail Pass...

 

Eurail pass is the only way to go! I usually travelled at night and slept on the train (a great way to save money). The BEST way to see Europe.

 

Would also recommend seeing Pompey.

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[Guest]

>>London 2 - 7

>A good place to start your adventure. No language problems and

>generally they like Americans. 5 days is a long time on a

>whirlwind tour though. In even the biggest cities, you’ll get

>bored in 3 days. The rest of Europe is calling.... keep

>moving! First hint…hit the big cities/capitals on the weekends

>when the nightlife is hopping.

>

I agree that 5 days is long compared to some other places, unless he has something special to do in London. However, one could easily spend 5 days in London without getting bored--especially if you like theater.

 

>>Brussels 8 - 10

>Excellent beer. Not much else. 2 days is generous.

>

Don't forget the chocolate, waffles, mussels, and fries. For contrasts as to the traditional and contemporary interpretations of Belgian chocolates, do go to both Mary's (traditional) and Marcolini's (contemporary). I would stick to two days, but spend one of those taking the quick train trip to Bruges (or another town such as Ghent).

 

>>Amsterdam 11 - 14

>Not one of my personal favorites. I find it all kind of

>depressing. Nice people and they speak better "American" than

>we do. Amazing Museums. 2 days max.

>

I love the Dutch people to death, but I have to agree that the country itself is rather boring. It's as flat as a pancake, the architecture isn't terribly inspiring (especially by European standards), and you won't being seeing any tulip field or cheese markets in October (it'll probably be dark and dreary).

 

>>Berlin 15 - 17

>So much has changed. The air of excitement and transformation

>has slowly started to cool, but it's still one of the hottest

>places in Europe. If German boys are your thing…you’ll be in

>heaven. Second hint…the American GI fantasy drives Berlin boys

>wild.

>

A rather quick visit for Berlin (don't forget, it takes a little while to get to Berlin from Amsterdam unless you take a night train or fly). Try to visit Potsdam, too (try to squeeze in more time from London or Amsterdam).

 

>>Prague 18 – 21

>Old Europe the way you THINK it should look. Grungy and

>pristine at the same time. Not that much to do and see though.

>Get a taste of Eastern Europe and keep moving!

>

Not much to do or see?? I just love this city (been there four times), and there are lots of castles nearby, as well as friendly and extremely handsome locals. I would definitely not cut time here.

 

>>Vienna 22 – 24

>One of my favorite European cities. A bit provincial compared

>to Berlin, but it’s the city I return to over and over again

>when I need a break from touring.

>

If you have only one city to see in Austria, I would recommend Salzburg, and maybe Bregenz on your way to Switzerland. Vienna isn't quite on your way from Prague to Switzerland--and the Austrian gay life is among the most oppressed in Western Europe.

 

>>Zurich 25 – 27

>Switzerland…kind of like dancers at the Gaiety. Expensive and

>beautiful to look at…but boring. Sing songs from the “Sound of

>Music” while climbing to nowhere…and move on!

>

Again, if you have only one Swiss city to see, it would be a shame to pick this one. The only advantage of Zuerich is that it's probably the city with the best chance of your finding someone to let you stay at his place. There are so many more gorgeous settings in Switerland--Luzern, Bern, Locarno, Lugano, etc.

 

>>Paris 28 – 2

>“No one’s been to Paris of the first time ‘til you’ve been to

>Paris for the first time”. Do it all and have fun.

>

You should have a ball here. Try to at least say a word or two in French, such as "Bonjour!" A little effort will go a long way in endearing you with the locals.

 

>>Barcelona 3 – 5

>Funky and the ENTIRE country runs 2 hours behind schedule.

>After 2 days you’ll be dreaming of those wonderful days of

>anal Swiss punctuality.

>

Plenty to do here, too. Great architecture. A good break is drinking sangria and people-watch on the Rambla.

 

>>Cannes 6 – 7

>Unless you’ve got a movie premier to attend….this town is

>pointless.

>

I'm also puzzled about this choice. There are a lot of pretty villages in the mountains of the French riviera, but Cannes is a strange base of operations and will be dead this time of year. Nice is a more logical base (also more convenient to Monaco).

 

>>Milan 8 – 10

>Friends with Armani?…if not…skip it…it’s a boring and ugly

>garment town.

>

I agree with this. If you want to spend time in the area, spend it on the Lago di Como (although you might be able to score yourself some lodging for sex in Milan). Otherwise, I agree with Florence instead.

 

>Venice 11 – 13

>Smells bad. Not that much to do and see. If you have to

>choose…go to Florence instead.

>

Venice is one of the most visually stunning and unique cities in the world. Do not miss it. I doubt it will smell in the middle of the Fall. Plenty of things to do and see (museums, Murano, Burano, architecture).

 

>Rome 14 – 17

>Loads of fun. Tons to see and do, but 3 days is plenty.

>

 

Ditto

 

 

>Munich…

If you'll be near Munich in later September or early October, Oktoberfest is a blast.

[Guest zipperzone]

I'm sure you will get many opinions from other Hoovillians who have done Europe before. Some will concur - others will have different ideas.

 

Two thoughts I would leave you with.

 

Given a choice, I would prefer Portugal to Spain. Lisbon is one of the great cities of Europe and too often overlooked.

 

I know this is all about back-packing, but........ If at all possible, consider doing it by car. You can buy a 2nd hand car, use it to travel all over, and sell it before you return to the US. That way it won't cost you very much and the convenience of being able to go ANYWHERE (down any little road that looks interesting) without always having a train/bus schedule in your hand and one eye on your watch, is very liberating. You will see SO much more doing this and can even sleep in the car in a pinch. Not to mention the hitch hikers you can give a ride to.

[Guest Tristan]

>>Amsterdam 11 - 14

>Not one of my personal favorites. I find it all kind of

>depressing. Nice people and they speak better "American" than

>we do. Amazing Museums. 2 days max.

>

 

One of the amazing museums is the Reichsmuseum, where you can find Rembrandt's famous painting "The Dutch Masters."

 

Another place not mentioned is the hiding place of Anne Frank. Not exactly on the fun list, but worthwhile. Anne Frank, with her family, hid there for two years from the Nazis until they were finally discovered. Anne Frank wrote her famous "Diary of Anne Frank" while hiding there. She died less than a year after being captured. Otto Frank, the father, was the only one to survive.

 

There's a movie based on her diary (1959). Just like concentration camps, it is a place for people from all backgrounds to see. A visit there is a moving experience. Of course, it helps to have seen the movie first.

[Guest alanm]

>I know this is all about back-packing, but........ If at all

>possible, consider doing it by car. You can buy a 2nd hand

>car, use it to travel all over, and sell it before you return

>to the US. That way it won't cost you very much and the

>convenience of being able to go ANYWHERE (down any little road

>that looks interesting) without always having a train/bus

>schedule in your hand and one eye on your watch, is very

>liberating. You will see SO much more doing this and can even

>sleep in the car in a pinch. Not to mention the hitch hikers

>you can give a ride to.

 

Given Scott Adler's tight schedule, a car would not work even with two people driving non stop. A car is a great idea if you have plenty of time. I bought a car in Amsterdam and sold it in Paris for about what I paid -- after driving throughout Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and France. The downsides: you can get pretty sick of the other person (and vice versa) on long trips, such as Nice to Malaga or Madrid to Paris. Also, hitch hikers are great, but you meet more people on trains.

 

Scott's schedule is fine. It is a good introduction to Europe. He can go back and revisit the places he likes the best.

[Guest]

>One of the amazing museums is the Reichsmuseum, where you can

>find Rembrandt's famous painting "The Dutch Masters."

>

 

For the love of Jesus Christ, it's the Rijksmuseum, not the Reichsmuseum. If you really want to piss off a Dutchman, confuse him for a German. Or better yet, make references to their greatest museum with the German Reich. x(

[VaHawk]

WHY not piss off a Dutchman?

 

It's a funny, funny sight, watching an "angry" Dutchman, tripping all over himself, while wearing those wooden shoes and squinting to find the damn hole in the dyke (no pun/offense intended to our "sisters" ) to stick his finger into to stop the "flow"!

 

Hey, I may not be a dyke, but I do have a hole that any hot Dutch or German boy is WELCOME to plug with at least his finger, but something a little bigger and a little further south would be much nicer ! :o

 

Now, could YOU possibly feel sillier about your ranting about spelling, Dutchmen and Germans, than this posting showed you to be?????

 

Nah???? Then EXCUSE the HAWK's intrusion into your rantings, as both the HAWK and his Dutch and German ancestors are just laughing it up and having a grand old time, thanks to you! :7 :7 :7 :7

[BgMstr4u]

It sounds like your trip is primarily city oriented. If that is the case, forget the car and do the train. Driving and parking in European cities is a nightmare beyond your wildest fears. ALL these cities were built before the automobile and have accomodated driving with maddening complexity. The trains give you easy arrival in city centers and the bonus of actually meeting people en route, as someone here already mentioned.

 

The time you spend driving is much better spent learning the language, idioms, customs and principal attractions of the next place you are heading for, which you can easily do on the train.

[Boston Guy]

I'd second that opinion if the trip is to be spent in cities. Or just rent a car for those small bits of time when you want one.

 

European trains are great and they present yet another opportunity to meet and enjoy other people, at least some of whom will be travelers like yourself.

 

BG

[Guest Tristan]

>

>For the love of Jesus Christ, it's the Rijksmuseum, not the

>Reichsmuseum. If you really want to piss off a Dutchman,

>confuse him for a German. Or better yet, make references to

>their greatest museum with the German Reich. x(

 

If you're going to criticize a mispelled word, at least get the spelling right yourself. It's actually Riijksmuseum. :7

 

Anyway, the Dutch will have to forgive an honest mistake. I don't know a word of Dutch. However, my English spelling and grammar are better than 99% of what I see on the Internet. I see huge numbers of common English mistakes on this site, and I rarely say a word about it. So why don't you concentrate on that before you jump all over someone who doesn't know the spelling of a very tricky Dutch name.

 

I wasn't sure how to spell it. When I Googled it, Reichsmuseum came up in large numbers without my realizing they were German Web Sites. I do know how the Dutch feel about Germans. I was in Amsterdam in the 60s, which was not that long after WW II. At that time, you didn't even dare to speak a word of German in public.

[Boston Guy]

There's something like five or six months before the trip begins. If you don't already know at least a little of the primary language used in each of the countries you will be visiting -- which means German, French and Italian, at least -- you should spend some time acquiring those skills.

 

You don't have to be fluent. Knowing a couple hundred words and some basic grammar can get you through lots and lots of situations that otherwise might be more difficult or at least not as much fun. Plus you come off as more knowledgeable, open and friendly to people who very well might be fluent in English but who will also appreciate your attempt to begin communicating in their language.

 

There are lots of benefits to acquiring some knowledge of other languages and it's a heck of a lot easier to do than most Americans think, especially if you already know at least one foreign language. If you do, then you've gone through the process of learning how to think and speak in a different language and you probably know about things like gender for nouns. With that kind of background, you can learn 250 words in any language you choose in six weeks without breaking a sweat... that's only six words a day, which happen to fit conviently on one side of an index card.

 

Choose 40 blank index cards. Write six words you want to know on one side of each. Carry one with you each day and look at it as you go through the day. Memorize the words. Anyone can memorize six words a day. At the end of a week, go through them and make sure you remember all 42. In six weeks, you'll have the beginnings of a working vocabulary, if you choose the right words.

 

Do include things like the "friendly" words: please, thank you, you're welcome. Include words that let you ask for directions and understand them, including the location of a bathroom. Include numbers and colors. Add basic verbs like "to be" and "to have". Then fill out the list with things you think you're going to want to be able to reference. Go through the vocabulary in the back of any "Beginners Guide To... " French or German or any language and pick out the 250 words you want to know.

 

Forget about complicated verb forms, including past and future tenses. You will be most concerned about the here and now. But, if the language does offer a short, standard form for the present tense of many verbs (like the Type I verbs in French), learn that form. Then all you need to do is learn the infinitive form for any verbs that follow those rules. (Usually the standard verb form is only six words long for the present tense, so one day's work.)

 

Then learn these words in each your three languages. You will be amazed, but if you go to France, say, knowing only 250 words and spend a couple of weeks there, you will leave knowing twice as many as you started with, and many of those words will stay with you for years.

 

You will also be amazed when you start with your third language. You'll find that learning the 250 words in the third language will be much easier than it was in the first one -- and much faster. You will have acquired language skills in your first 12 weeks that will aid you in learning other languages, an added bonus that will serve you well as you pass through life.

 

Is it necessary to do this to get through Europe? No. Is it necessary to do this to have fun in Europe. No, again. But it will definitely help you have a richer experience and probably meet and get to know people you might otherwise just pass right by. And, after all, isn't that really what travel is all about? Pictures of buildings and mountains can be found in books. Travel is about meeting people who live life differently, think differently... people who can help us learn more about the world and challenge our preconceived notions of it and, in so doing, learn more about our ourselves and our own place in the world.

 

BG

[+ Charlie]

I have been to every city on Scott's list at least once, and have lived in a couple of them, so indulge my biases.

 

London--don't include it on this trip. It's worth much more than five days, since you might as well combine it with sightseeing in other parts of the UK, and getting from London to the other cities on the list is fairly expensive. I lived there for a year.

 

Brussels--great food, a wonderful central plaza, but two days max

 

Amsterdam--one of my favorite cities in the world, to which I return about once a year, despite the grunginess of the touristic center, because it is so beautiful and so easy-going; nevertheless, there isn't much for a first-time vistior to do for more than three days, if he doesn't enjoy simply walking around the city for hours as I do, just enjoying the atmosphere

 

Berlin--certainly worth more than three days (you could spend half a day waiting on line to get into the new Reichstag dome, which is worth the wait); it's one of the most dynamic cities in Europe right now, with new attractions opening all the time; definitely visit Libeskind's new Jewish Museum. Can be quite cold and even snowy as early as the beginning of October.

 

Prague--a beautiful, romantic city, but a tourist can see most things in a few days; I admit that it may have changed a lot, since I lived there when it was just emerging from Communist rule. Same weather caveat as Berlin.

 

Vienna--I loved it when I lived there as a student in the early 80s, but it was not very gay friendly then, and I haven't heard that it has improved much; three days is probably enough for a visitor. Same weather caveat as Berlin.

 

Zurich--more sexually active than you might expect, but except for the beautiful site, it's fairly sterile

 

Paris--four days is probably not enough, although this is a city you will want to go back to and stay for an extended period in the future, unlike Zurich

 

Barcelona--most people seem more impressed with this city than I was in my one brief visit many years ago; I should probably go back

 

Cannes--worth one day, in high season (not autumn), and only so you can drop the name in conversation; in fact, unless you are already passing through en route to someplace worthwhile, I wouldn't waste time going there

 

Milan--two days are enough to see everything important, unless you are a serious shopper; try to go to La Scala for the experience

 

Venice--you either love it or hate it, and I love it; in late autumn it can be cold and damp

 

Rome--three days is not enough even to see the most basic tourist sites

 

Finally, let me reinforce the warnings against renting a car if all you plan to do is drive between cities; parking is impossible in most of them, and driving is not fun (especially in London, where you have to contend with everything being reversed). Train travel is the way to go between these places, because you can actually see some of the countryside.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Finally, let me reinforce the warnings against renting a car

>if all you plan to do is drive between cities; parking is

>impossible in most of them, and driving is not fun (especially

>in London, where you have to contend with everything being

>reversed). Train travel is the way to go between these places,

>because you can actually see some of the countryside.

 

I guess I don't understand this bias against buying (not renting) a car which can be sold prior to coming home for about the same as you paid for it.

 

I admit, parking can be difficult at times but certainly not impossible. And, by the way, I have never had any trouble driving in London, in spite of their penchant to drive on the "wrong" side of the road.

 

Any inconvenience a car might prove to be in the larger cities of Europe, is far outweighed by the ultimate freedom it gives you to explore any mile of road that catches your fancy without the constraints of a timetable. Any by using public transportation, you only get to see the cities/towns that are on their route. You completly miss all the wonderful little towns and villages (that you otherwise would not even know about) and the friendly locals and fantastic meals in little out of the way bistros.

 

Be adventurous - drive yourself and forget the trains, you will never regret it.

[Boston Guy]

>Be adventurous - drive yourself and forget the trains, you

>will never regret it.

>

 

:-) Just goes to show the old "different strokes..." kind of thing. I'd recommend (and think I actually did, above) "Be adventurous - take the train and forget the car, you will never regret it."

 

In truth, he'll probably have a ball either way.

 

BG

[Guest alanm]

This thread was about Scott Adler's backpacking trip to Europe, somehow it has turned into something else -- Rick Steve's travel guide for those who have more money (and are willing to spend it) than Steve's audience.

 

I am a big fan of buying a car in Europe if you are going to spend at least three months there. Buying and selling a car may take a week or longer. Cars can break down. Daylight lasts until about 4 o'clock or earlier in the winter in much of Europe.

 

On the other hand, driving in cities is not as difficult as has been suggested. A car beats a train every time for handling luggage. You will see (and spend time in) parts of Europe, like quaint villages in the Basque country, etc. Finally, a car provides an element of stability that you just do not get from constant train travel.

 

Even though I would rather have three root canals than learn three new languages. Boston Guy's suggestion about languages make sense if you are driving in Europe.

[Guest]

>If you're going to criticize a mispelled word, at least get

>the spelling right yourself. It's actually Riijksmuseum. :7

>

 

You need to follow your own advice. It's the Rijksmuseum. Here's their website:

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/index.jsp

And while we're at it, it's "misspelled," not "mispelled." I'm not sure what it would mean to "pell" something incorrectly.

[Guest]

I think it would be difficult to learn three languages at once without confusing them. I have used Berlitz casette tapes or CD's and the Language/30 series, however, to learn some basic language skills for one language prior to a trip (i.e. Italian or Portuguese), and you will get better treatment in most cases if you can even briefly converse in the local language (except the Dutch, who will be mildly amused by the suggestion that they don't speak good English). I would pick French or the three. You can usally get the tapes or CD's for about $20 or less on ebay.

[Boston Guy]

I agree it would be confusing to try to learn three at once. But he has five or six months so he could learn three, serially. That's what I was referring to when I said that by the time he got to the third one he'd find he was picking up things faster and faster.

 

Good suggestions about CD's, by the way, especially for pronunciation.

 

But, for me, I find the approach most CD's take to be aggravating. They want to immerse you in a language and have you listening and trying to respond without having anything in front of you to look at. I'm sure this works well for some people but I'm very visual and learn much faster when I see the words I'm trying to learn. So I use the written method to learn vocabulary and simple grammar and CD's to learn more phrases and pronunciation.

 

I grew up thinking that I was terrible with foreign languages, like most Americans, I guess. What I discovered, to my surprise, was that learning the basics of most languages is actually pretty easy and pretty fun, once you're not having it forced down your throat through artificial language lessons. Who knew? :-)

 

BG

[+ Charlie]

Having a car in Europe is fine, IF you want to explore the countryside. Scott's itinerary seems to be entirely urban, and in the central cities a car is unnecessary, as well as inconvenient and more expensive than using public transport. And if one is not somewhat linguistically fluent, dealing with directions and non-symbolic traffic signs can be nerve-wracking. I have driven on the left extensively in Britain and Australia, and it does require a lot of concentration to offset American righthand driving instincts, not a good thing in chaotic London traffic.

[Luv2play]

Frankly, I wouldn't backpack in Europe in October. It should really be done in the summer. Despite its mild climate, people don't realize how far north most of Europe is compared to North America. The days are really short in October compared to most North American cities and that includes most of Canada where people actually live (i.e. within 60 miles of the US border).

 

Definitely, if backpacking is the main idea, rely on trains and the kindness of strangers. I backpacked in Europe when I was 21 and a handsome lad and I had a ball. Picked up by more strangers than I can remember and all of them very nice. I did about 10 countries in about 4 months. I was invited to stay in homes and some of the people I visited in later years when I was travelling on business. I spoke 2 languages (English and French) and I faked the rest. It was fun and don't be afraid to mangle the pronunciation.

 

For a first visit, I would stick with visiting the major cities and maybe try a few villages or small towns for overnight stays if possible. If the weather is bad, the big cities will definitely be more fun than sitting it out in a small fogbound hamlet.

 

Try to be flexible and stay a bit longer in the cities you take a liking to and move on faster or cut cities that may prove impossible to fit in with your timing. I personally love Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, London and Rome and would also spend a day or two in Prague, Venice, Vienna and Geneva over Zurich. Cannes is only fun during the film festival. If you're in that area, spend the night in St. Tropez (you might get to see Brigitte Bardot, which I did in a small restaurant in the old port, she lives there after all).

 

Barcelona is interesting but not on the way to anywhere if you are not heading further south. You will lose time getting there and back. However, if you go, visit Sitges if possible altho it is a bit late in the season).

 

As a final hint, if you are really backpacking, put a Canadian flag on your pack and try to remember that Canada's capital is Ottawa (ought-a wah). Americans were doing that even back in the 60's when I did my backpacking because of Vietnam and today isn't any different with Iraq! :7

[+ deej]

No matter which method you choose, getting some basic vocabulary down in advance will definitely work wonders once you're in total immersion.

 

You're absolutely correct about subsequent languages coming easier, particularly if you stick to the romance languages. And remember, you've already learned the most difficult modern language to learn: English. ;-)

 

I remain in awe of someone who uses English as a second language and gets it down well.

[Boston Guy]

Yup. Just say this sentence out loud:

 

Although I thought I'd see the rough bough through the ploughed snow above the borough, I coughed instead.

 

:-)

 

BG

[Guest alanm]

BG:

 

I'm one of those people who hated taking a foreign language (French) in high school and college. I've been to France many times and my French comes back, but very slowly.

 

Thanks for the comments about leaning another language being easier now than one remembers. I have a HUGE block about even trying. I'm going to Italy on Memorial Day, so, because of your advice, I will try to learn something beyond the 5 Italian words I know. In my defense, I am taking an undergrad course in Italian Renaissance art at the University of Pennsylvania, so I am doing something worthwhile already. I could do much more though.

 

A

[Guest Tristan]

>>If you're going to criticize a mispelled word, at least get

>>the spelling right yourself. It's actually Riijksmuseum. :7

>>

>

>You need to follow your own advice. It's the Rijksmuseum.

>Here's their website:

>http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/index.jsp

>And while we're at it, it's "misspelled," not "mispelled." I'm

>not sure what it would mean to "pell" something incorrectly.

>

 

I think you knew that "mispell" was a typo. Let's not get petty. Actually, the typo in my first sentence was inadvertently pretty funny IMO.

 

As for the spelling of the museum, I did find numerous web sites using Riijksmuseum. As before, they were web sites other than Dutch ones. I don't know Dutch, and the name of the museum is enough to cause eyestrain. I don't make these things up. Try using Google and you'll see all the different spellings.

 

I think we should leave this thread to the travelers. It's not a spelling contest. Concentrate more on common English misspellings, such as discreet vs. discrete (very few get this right), there vs. their, or the incorrect use of consensus. I think these are more important than the spelling of a Dutch museum most Americans don't even know exists. End of story.