backpack in euro

October 11, 2005 11:58 AM

I'm interested in backpacking through Europe. I have no job to tie me down at the moment, so I have all the time in the world to see as much as I possibly can. How much should I expect to spend on a trip to Europe in a two week trip? And is it possible to see it all in two weeks, or should I plan for more?
posted by bamassippi to travel & transportation (21 comments total)

Hmm, I think you might have to narrow down the scope of the question a bit, as it's definitely not possible to see "it all" in two weeks... any particular cities you want to visit, types of things you want to do?

I recently spent 3 days in Budapest, 4 days in Prague, and 3 days in Munich. I felt really rushed, but I also felt like I got some idea of what the cities are like, and I had a great time. But it depends entirely on what you're looking for.

Cost is also going to vary wildly depending on your preferences and the cities involved. Beer is absurdly cheap in Prague, for instance, but lodging not so much.
posted by gurple at 12:02 PM on October 11, 2005

On one hand, if I had no job, I would never travel for only two weeks. On the other hand, even two weeks can be a really long time if you're not enjoying yourself. I like traveling but not everyone does -- especially not super low budget hostel traveling.

So if you aren't completely sold on the backpacking thing, two weeks can work, but I wouldn't try to see all of your Europe. Just pick one or two countries on concentrate on them. Try to see to much and you spend all your time or money on trains, which is not why you went there.
posted by smackfu at 12:17 PM on October 11, 2005

There's an entire industry of travel guides and websites that attempts to answer some of these questions, or at least guide you through the process. Pick up a Lonely Planet or Rough Guide or Let's Go. Check out the forums at Lonely Planet or Transitions Abroad.

With such a broad question about a common activity, I don't think you're going to get much more than random anecdotes on this site. They might be entertaining, but I think you're going to have to put in some more work on your own to get the trip you want.
posted by occhiblu at 12:20 PM on October 11, 2005

Pick one or two countries, possibly three, resign yourself to not seeing anywhere near "all" of those countries, and focus on them nonetheless.

...and be prepared to spend more than you planned.
posted by aramaic at 12:27 PM on October 11, 2005

If you 'have no job', have 'all the time in the world', and are concerned about money, why not consider Central or South America? Plane fares will be cheaper and you'd be able to travel (depending on what countries you go to) for well over a month on what you'd spend in two weeks in Europe.
posted by driveler at 12:47 PM on October 11, 2005

No, you can't see even a fraction of Europe in two weeks. You'll see a few train stations and a few big-name tourist attractions, but you'll miss most of the fun of travel: meeting people, getting off the road, broadening your horizons.
posted by teaperson at 12:57 PM on October 11, 2005

When I was last unemployed, I wanted to travel (to Japan). So I went through the job hunt, with the added motivation that I needed to find something while I still had money to comfortably travel. When I found a job, I made it clear to them I needed to set my start date a month out because I was going to be in Japan. After signing the paperwork, I drove straight to the Japantown travel agent and bought my plane ticket!

This was ideal, IMO, because a) It motivated my job hunt, b) it meant while traveling I didn't have to worry about what I was going to do when I got back, and c) I was confident enough in my future cash flow to not worry too much about travel expenses too much.

I spent three weeks there, mostly in three or four different cities. Japan is a lot smaller than Europe, but to see "all of it" I think I would have to have spent months or years there!

It was one of the best 3 weeks of my life, and I'm currently planning a similar trip in Europe. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!
posted by aubilenon at 1:00 PM on October 11, 2005

With no job to tie you down, why in the world would you go for two weeks? Plan several months, or as long as you have the funds. Take side-jobs when you can. Really make a trip of it, for goodness sake. Buy a cheap bike when you get there and ride around some, too. Start north and as it gets cooler, move south. Or hit the south while there still may be beach-weather. Spend some time in Kaliningrad. Albania. Other inexpensive but cool places. Talk to folks at youth hostels. Stay at youth hostels and camp if you can.

Have a great time, and don't even try to see or do "it all." That's what trips up most travelers, and turns them into tourists.
posted by lorrer at 1:04 PM on October 11, 2005

Is "can I see it all in two weeks" a joke?
Either you come from a somewhat insulated place, or surely you're pulling our legs.

Western Europe is more expensive than the US, if that's where you're from. Going to England for example, things cost almost twice what they cost here in California.

Hie thee to the library, borrow Rough Guide books.
posted by anadem at 1:13 PM on October 11, 2005

is it possible to see it all in two weeks

Not a chance. As I once said to American students on summer study programmes who asked the exact same question, six months is more like it. You're not on the Amazing Race.

That said, it's possible to have a very good trip in a limited time if you set boundaries. Start in a major transport hub, get a EuRail pass limited to the particular region that interests you most, and plan on spending at least a few days in each location. Otherwise you get the kind of holiday that only railway enthusiasts love.

How much? A good rule of thumb is to budget things so that at least every few days -- ideally, on the day you arrive in a new destination -- you're staying in somewhere that's more upscale than a backpacker hostel: somewhere with a private room, a shower, and a chance to chill out for a couple of hours. Otherwise it's easy to get beaten down by spending every night in a dorm room surrounded by other backpackers. It will be expensive.

To be honest, I'd just pick one large country (or 2-3 small ones, such as the Baltic states) and devote a couple of weeks; or save up a good chunk of cash and spend a few months. Savour it, don't gulp it down. Once you get into the 'it's Tuesday, it must be Belgium' mode, you become a stereotypical American Tourist.
posted by holgate at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2005

"Let's go" are AWESOME books-esp. to see the cool stuff, cheap ways to get around, cheap places to stay. I travelled in Europe for 2 1/2 months and still only saw France, Spain, one trip to Morocco, Italy and one stop in Switzerland...and I still felt rushed!

Stay in youth hostels if you can...they are pretty cheap. If money is an object, you can go to cheaper countries. France, Italy (at least Rome & Florence & Venice), England & isles, are VERY expensive.
posted by aacheson at 1:40 PM on October 11, 2005

I agree with previous posters...it may be possible to visit cities all around Europe in two weeks, and earn the privlege of saying "I've been there," but to "see" (much less experience) anything meaningful will take more time.

I've backpacked Europe twice, each time was for two months. First time was Great Britain + Ireland + Spain (with one month for Spain alone), the second time was for Scandinavia + Eastern Europe. Because I spent more time in each area, I got to explore second- and third-tier cities that others wouldn't see due to time constraints, and came back with sights and stories that made my experience unique (not just "OMG did you see that guy on las ramblas?!)"

Point being, pick a country (or a region of that country--think Italy), or geographic area you think is interesting, and own it--go all over it, to cities & towns of varying size, really get a feel for the area. I think that you will get more out of a trip like that than one that is broad but shallow.
posted by Brian James at 1:41 PM on October 11, 2005

'can I see it all in two weeks?'

No, I wasn't joking... just asking. I don't know, that's why I asked.
posted by bamassippi at 2:30 PM on October 11, 2005

I'd say give yourself a good 10 days in any city to really get a feel for it. It takes a day or two to get used to foreign public transit, and once you're accustomed to it, you'll see more of the city than you would just sticking to walking.

Prague is extremely cheap if you stay out of the tourist areas in Stare Mesto. Western Europe, on the other hand, is expensive wherever you go (I went from Prague to Amsterdam and almost cried at the price difference). So if you're travelling on the cheap, do the classic Prague->Vienna->Budapest->Warsaw route, hanging out in smaller cities along the way.

A EuRail pass might come in handy, and BugEurope (and their print travel guides) is a good resource.
posted by cmonkey at 3:45 PM on October 11, 2005

pick a country (or a region of that country--think Italy), or geographic area you think is interesting, and own it

Absolutely seconded. And you will have much more fun (and more impressive travel tales when you get back) if you discover unknown trattorias in little Italian villages, or back-street bars in Bratislava, than rattling off a familiar checklist of cities and sights.

Rick Steves' site is pretty good here. (Especially the radio/podcast stuff.) He understands the instinctive desire of American visitors to Europe who want to see everything, but is great at guiding people away from the same old, same old. He has a bit of a cult following ('Yes, we're all individuals!' 'I'm not!') but his rules of thumb are worth following.
posted by holgate at 3:51 PM on October 11, 2005

Lonely Planet, Let's Go, etc. are not well-suited for the kind of extreme-belt tightening budget you're going to need to "see" Europe without a job. Europe is expensive. Generally, the more north, the more expensive, so stay out of Scandinavia unless you find a nice boy or girl to take care of you (and your expenses).

What you're going to need to do is start researching areas to camp out in Europe. Germany is actually a great place for ultra-poor tent-dwelling backpackers because of the public land use laws. If I recall correctly, you can camp out on the banks of the river Isar in Munich for as long as you want. You'll need a good tent, and two changes of clothing. No more than two. You're going to need to travel as light as possible.

Once you arrive, your first responsibility will be to track down a group of Australians as soon as possible. They will teach you the rest. :)

is it possible to see it all in two weeks

Ha. More like two lifetimes. Compromise: 5 months should do nicely.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:57 PM on October 11, 2005

Lonely Planet, Let's Go, etc. are not well-suited for the kind of extreme-belt tightening budget you're going to need

How so? They're budget travel guides, written for backpackers staying in hostels. They often include campsite information, as well as listings for grocery stores and cheap restaurants rather than upscale places. Their whole *mission* is to get people to travel exactly in this budget-tightening way.
posted by occhiblu at 4:18 PM on October 11, 2005

Because the hostel prices may be too dear for someone trying to save cash and still enjoy themselves. A $30 room in Copenhagen might be a great deal, but that's 5 beers you're sleeping on.

The last iteration of the guides that I've seen are primarily aimed at those who can afford to spend a few grand over a couple of months (Eurail passes, etc.). They briefly mention sketchy details on camp sites, but won't tell you good (safe) places to hitch a ride to actually get to said sites.

"Budget" is a relative term; when travelling you have to evaluate your tolerances along the price/comfort continuum. When I was in Indonesia I stayed in a fisherman's bamboo hut for practically nothing. There was no toilet or running water, but it was right on the water and the price couldn't be beat. It was heaven to me, but I imagine some people would be apprehensive about approaching a local to make such a deal, not to mention the bug-potential. In contrast, my parents think "budget" means "cheap hotel with no room service." Shitting in a hole isn't even on their radar.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:04 PM on October 11, 2005

You may find locals poke a little fun at you if you have the attitude that anything much can be seen in two weeks.
Imagine if someone said the same about the USA. You might be offended if they thought LA, San Fran and NY were the only places to visit (as I gather you live in none of them) or at least think they were a bit naive or unsophisticated for not recognising the thousands of other places worth visiting.
Now consider the dozens of countries in Europe with distinct cultures and rich histories and I think you will see why your two weeks comment is gathering a few snarks.
That said, my first trip to Europe was my honeymoon and we stayed a month. In that time we saw a bit of London, Paris, Rome, Venice and Florence. I wouldn't say we felt rushed, as we set our own schedule, but it certainly gave us a good taste of things and we have now had half a dozen vacations in the EU and lived in the UK for a couple of years.
You might do well to pick a couple of cities or regions and spend a week in each. If you can spend a little longer, I say go for it. You may well be able to pick up a little cash work without a visa waiting tables or serving in a bar if funds are an issue, and don't be put off by claims that Europe is ridiculously expensive.
Figure on living a backpacker lifestyle for about $USD50 a day (based on hostel accommodation @$25 and super market food, limited entertainment). Definitely worth it.
posted by bystander at 7:09 PM on October 11, 2005

>They briefly mention sketchy details on camp sites, but won't tell you good (safe) places to hitch a ride to actually get to said sites.

Yeah, that's a liability issue. If someone were to get raped and murdered while hitching, they could theoretically sue the guidebook authors. Some of the Let's Go guides do, however, make third-person "Those who hitch congregate here" comments in areas where hitching is very common (in the Ireland guide, for instance); not sure how, or if, Lonely Planet deals with that.

That said, however, I'm kinda guessing that someone who's seriously asking if he can see all of Europe in two weeks is not going to be an intrepid enough traveler to be hitching between unreviewed campsites. So I stand by my "Get a guidebook" recommendation.
posted by occhiblu at 9:04 PM on October 11, 2005

Cost depends entirely on your cost of living, your sense of adventure, and what standard of comfort/predictability you want.

For example: staying in hostels is almost always predictable (you know exactly what to expect, right down to drunk Australians waking you up at 1 in the morning), but staying with people who actually live in the places you're visiting (through free hospitality exchanges such as Hospitality Club, Global Freeloaders, or Couchsurfers, for example) can be so much more rewarding: many hosts will show you around or take you out for beer/dinner & tell their personal histories of places that Lonely Planet reduces to boring three-sentence blurbs. As always, it's a bit of a risk you'll end up with someone totally incompatible or intolerable, but you should always meet in a public place & can certainly leave early (I've stayed with four different people, one of whom was unpleasant, but the others more than made up for it with their generosity & hospitality). If you do stay in hostels in big cities, it may be a boon to pre-book: I found the last bed in Stockholm on an uneventful Thursday night in August, then in October couldn't find a single room under 200 euro (!) in Toulouse (fortunately a sweet English-speaking university student started talking to me on the public bus out of town [where I was headed to get a lift elsewhere at 7pm, late for a single woman to hitchhike!] and invited me to stay with her).

There's always the possibility of hitchhiking: Germany is renowned for ease-of-hitching, and in Finland & France single women were utterly blase about picking up two strangers (me: 24yr old woman & her 18yr old lil' brother). If you're on a limited schedule it may be more frustrating than fun (lifts don't come immediately, but it's more for the enjoyment of hearing new stories & having new adventures than it is the cushyness/speed of travel). There are lots of hitching resources available (digihitch, a US-based hitching site, has some info on Europe & some links, though of course there are a lot more Europe/country-specific site as the EU is in general a lot more relaxed and less nervous about hitching than Americans are).

General tips on maximizing your time:
- Pack Very Light. Nothing is more frustrating than walking around looking for a place to stay in a city where you don't have something lined up. Your backpack should weigh about half as much as you're comfortable with: I weigh 130lbs & try to never carry more than 30lbs including the clothes I'm wearing--in the winter this is a bit more difficult, but aim light.
- Ask directions if you're lost or if you think you might be getting on the wrong bus/train/road/etc. Never be fearful of embarrassing yourself or mangling a foreign language--you will probably never see any of these people again, ever. Learn how to say "pardon me, do you speak English" and use it a lot if you don't speak any languages relevant to the area. Learn to simplify how you speak & rely a lot on gestures if you have to. It will save you a lot of time and a lot more low-level mental stress! Also: bring a tiny compass that attaches to your belt loop or something, so it's easy to get to--it will come in a lot more handy than it sounds.
- Eat well, but also buy breakfast/snacks from the grocery store (make sure they keep well--a little tupperwear container or ziplocks are nice to have along). It's better to have bread & cheese & nuts or fruit to stave off hunger than it is to spend a lot (or even a little) for fast food.
- Rough Guides are almost always much better in terms of giving you a cultural/historical context than Lonely Planet. In smaller cities it's much easier to walk around & orient yourself at first, then look for a place to stay/eat/etc (see: packing light) than it is to rely entirely on your guidebook for eating/sleeping recommendations. Of course read over them, but don't consider them essential whatsoever.
posted by soviet sleepover at 9:12 PM on October 11, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]