Length of stay?

[dumbdiety]

Many people post asking how long they should stay in a certain city/area. Let's use this thread to post how long you believe you need to really "see" somewhere. For example, I've seen people say you can see London in 5 days, while others say you need a month to see everything. I'm not going to post a list of places initially (there are sooooo many places, I don't know WHAT to put in the list yet!), but after people reply I'll start compiling them here and for a later purpose (insert evil laughter here).

• Only post times for places you've been!
  
• No arguing over times! This is what you think you'd need somewhere!
  

Added to (hopefully) clarify:
You have 30 days in Europe. You want to hit between 5 and 10 cities. Where would you go, and how long would you stay there? We'll assume, just for this list, that all travel time is an overnighter.
What I'm trying to do is compile a list of cities and what the general consensus is on how long it takes to "see" it.

[me]

Rome: spent 5 days and felt that too much was missed.

Vienna: spent a week (7 days) and felt the same way.

it depends on one's interests. some would be happy with less, some not. that's subjectivity for you!

- d

[WillTravel]

I know I have lots left to see everywhere I have gone. For example, even though Paris wasn't my favorite city, there are still many things I want to see very badly, although I already spent a week there. (And I think if I went back when it wasn't hot and humid, and if I didn't meet a few men like the ones who were unpleasant, I might change my opinion of Paris anyway.)

I've done lots of reading about Venice and read many reports of people who've been there. Thus, I know I could easily spend weeks doing a thorough investigation of everything that interests me. I had four nights, but so much remains undone. Yet many people claim two days is enough to see everything.

And so on with lots of cities. I could see someone not liking London, but I can't see running out of stuff to do there, no matter how long you stay.

[dumbdiety]

Hmmm....
I agree with everything you guys said. I know that it's really subjective, I'm just looking for how long you think people need to stay to really see something. Like some itineraries list London for 3 days, and then a whole thread is spent talking about how many days should be spent there. I'm just looking for an average number of days that people *think* should be spent there to hit the "major" sights.

[LHR02]

do you really want me to start opining on this? Or anyone? It is soooo subjective ya know. I suppose a good idea in theory, but everyone has their own interests and must see's that it makes it very personal.

You are obviously planning some sort of 'list'....what is it you are looking for...info wise?

[dumbdiety]

Hmph...ok....
Here's something from Eagle from a recent thread

How long should you stay in each city? That's hard to answer without knowing what you're most interested in. My tendency would be to spend perhaps two days in some cities (Nice, Naples, Madrid) and spend 4-7 days in some of the large and more historically interesting cities (Rome, Florence, Berlin). You will also need to factor in travel times, as you'll be covering some longer distances on some legs of your trip. You only mentioned travelling by rail, and I'm assuming you weren't planning on using budget airlines, especially as your travel budget would be a bit "limited" for these additional costs.

Followed by this from rchua

for me i would stay in rome for about 3-4 days. i heard people saying you should take a week or so in rome but to me that's just too long. you can see most of the cool sights in about 2-3 days. i was in rome for about 5-6 days and thought it was too long. so to get away from the big city my friend and i went to venice for a day trip. venice is a definate must for any traveler. spend a few days there. you'll enjoy the easy atmosphere in the city and cool shops with the carnivale masks.

to which Dustoffmom replied

Well, I couldn't disagree more. My first visit to Rome was 6 days and I felt I had barely scratched the surface. Two subsequent visits have been one week each. And I still have much to see there. Trying to see Rome in 2-3 days is insanity. If that is all you have to devote to this city, in my opinion, why bother? Find somewhere else to go instead.

And no, I'm not trying to rag on anyone. My point is, we have three people in one thread saying Rome can be done anywhere from 3 days to over a week! What I'm looking for is just what everyone thinks you need in order to hit the "big" things in a city. It's a totally subjective and personal list, but go ahead and post it.
To make this a little easier, let's do it like this:
You have 30 days in Europe. You want to hit between 5 and 10 cities. Where would you go, and how long would you stay there? We'll assume, just for this list, that all travel time is an overnighter.
What I'm trying to do is compile a list of cities and what the general consensus is on how long it takes to "see" it.
I'm also hoping this post makes a little more sense than the previous ones! ;D