European leg of an RTW trip

I think it is difficult to give such a fixed ratio - although 1:3 or "better" (I mean 1:4 1:5 etc.) is a good starting point.

My general observation/opinion:
It really depends on the place:
3 days in Paris or London is so short that it really is ridiculous, on the other hand a 1 day + 1 night stop in Brugge, Belgium is OK - and even a full day visit (although Brugge in the evening is worth seeing).

The largest problem I see is that ppl. from outside Europe are so focused in visiting an many countries as possible. Wonder if they also try to visit as many states and provinces as possible in the US, Canada, Australia...??

In this way they end up travelling LONG distances between a few stops, that seem to be selected from the names that they somehow remember from a movie or which by some reason unknown to me are very popular in the country they come from - a few examples are Nice or Cinque Terre or Neuswanstein (there are 1000s of castles in Germany more interesting - and they are even genuine and old) .. and literally all capitals belongs to that list! Why are capitals so interesting? Why do you see trips that simply are "capital-hopping"?

This in addition to the "must-see"-idea is ruining so many trips IMHO.
You CAN have a wonderful trip to Egypt - seeing a LOT - without ever seeing the Pyramids - or to the US without visiting Niagara and Grand Canyon.

why are you planning so far in advance? Things will change anyway... you will want to stay longer in one place, get bored of another place, hear about something different and go over there. Why don't you arrive and see how you go once you are there?

I suppose that based on the limited amount of information that I have written and on the general pattern of North-Americans that visit this forum, I can see how some people would get the general impression that I am am just one more of those North-Americans who don't know much about Europe and want to simply check off the cities from a list. But that's not the case. I was actually born in Europe and I have already travelled through a few European countries.

I really think that the choice of destinations is dependent on one's priorities. The reason for picking a lot of capitals and larger cities, as someone was wondering, is that high on our priority list is seeing architecture and art and imersing oneself in history. I have a degree in history and my wife has one in art history. Capitals tend to excel in offering that kind of experience, whereas charming little towns don't necessarily (though they may sometimes). So there's going to be a higher proportion of larger cities for that reason, than smaller towns. Small towns offer a different kind of experience, and we want that too, but to a smaller extent.

The time that I have assigned in each city is adjusted for the activities that we think we will do in it. As Bjoern remarked, some cities just don't warrant staying for too long, whereas for others even staying for weeks doesn't do them justice. So I've adjusted the number of days in each place to best account for that in my opinion... To answer to meyay, yes things may change, but it's a good idea to at least plan an itinerary and know where you may want to go next.

I appreciate the advice and the time that you people put into answering these questions. But I think that some of you jump to conclusions based on your own opinions and think that everyone should think the way you do. For instance two of you already remarked how going to Neuschwanstein is just a waste of time because it's not even "authentic" and it's "Disney-like". But have you even considered the fact that some people may want to go there for other reasons? I personally would think it very interesting to see what the 19th century romantic view of medieval history was, which after all is what this castle is all about. I've seen authentic castles, but this one I want to see precisely because it's not. And what's so wrong about that? Besides, it lies fairly conveniently on my itinerary, and it's got a beautiful location...

Anyway, I did take the advice of some of you and revised my itinerary.

England - London 7 d $210/d
Netherlands - Amsterdam -7 d (day trip to Rotterdam) , Enschede 3 d (we have family there) $167/d
Belgium - Brussels 4 d (again we have some family there) $108/d
fly to Spain (from Amsterdam) - Madrid 5 d, Cordoba 3 d, Seville 4 d, Algeciras 1 d (transiting - this is combined with another stay here later) $197/d
Morocco - Tangier 2 d, Chefchaouen 3d, Fes 4 d, Marrakech 5d, Essaouira 4d $91/d
Spain - Algeciras again (see above), Granada 3d, Valencia 2d, Barcelona 4d + another day for travel $197/d
fly from Barcelona to Italy - Rome 7d (we have a place to stay), Florence 3d, Venice 2d, Trento 5d (we have a place to stay, so we can rest there) $132/d
Austria - Innsbruck 3 d $210/d
Germany - Munich 4d (with day trip to Neuschwanstein) $172/d
Czech Rpb - Prague 4d $169/d
Austria - Vienna 4d $170/d
Hungary - Budapest 5d (we have a place to stay) $70/d
Romania - Cluj 2d, Brasov 3d, Bucharest 10d (family again and rest), Iasi 2d (yes more family), Moldavian monasteries 2d $50/d
fly to Greece - Athens 2-3d, Crete 3d, island-hopping 10d $150/d
Turkey - Kusadasi/Selcuk/Efes 3d, Pamukkale 2d, Konya 2d, Cappadocia 3d, Ankara 2d (it's on the way and I just want to see the museum of Anatolian civs there), Istanbul 6d, $100/d

This way I reduced the number of destinations to 39 (including 3 Greek islands), for 156 days, thus averaging a more reasonable 4 days per destination.

I sure understand what you say (except the calculation of 4 days/destination - it is still 3 days (4 nights) average as you will be travelling most of day 4.

But, but ...the "small towns" you are leaving out in each country are also 1+ million inh. places, and historical gems - just a single example: You stay 4 nights in Bruxelles - ok a fine art museum, but for history (and art): you should visit Brugge, Mechelen, Gent, Leuven, Antwerp - just to mention a few - that rank at level with Bruxelles IMHO for a history/art tour. ANd you cannot make all of these on daytours with 3 days to spare.
But OK you seem to be concentrating on Spain, Morocco, Romania and Turkey - which is fine if that is what you prefer (although only Spain seems a major "architecture and art" destination).

You are not really visiting Germany - but if you did - you should go to smaller (still talking ½million towns) and not the big ones as most were totally destroyed after the WWII bombings. (And then we could discusss why wasting time visiting a modern place like Neuschwanstein - but I know ppl. from Disneylands homecountry like the recognisable sight ;-) )

All this said - I am now sure you have chosen places spread out all over southern and middle Europe and Turkey and Morocco thet YOU want to see - and no one should critisiese that, I guess. Just remember that many here think you are missing a lot in some of the countries in order to cover so widespread places.