I have 18 days in Europe (including travel days). I am flying into London and have already decided to narrow down my trip itinerary to London, Amsterdam, Prague, Rome, and Paris. Is this too much? My plan was to spend 3 days in London, 3 days in Amsterdam, 3 days in Prague, 4 days in Rome, and 3 days in Paris and fly home on the 18th day out of Paris. Can anybody help me decide if this is too much to tackle? This will be my first time in Europe and I originally wanted to do much more, but decided on these 5 places instead because I want to enjoy each place I visit. If it helps, I plan to fly between places in order to save time and arrive in the new cities in the mornings.
Posted by
Brisbane, Australia
7175 posts
I'd prefer a 4th night in Paris over Rome
Start with 3 nights in London
Then 4 nights in Paris, by train
Then 3 nights in Amsterdam, by train
Then 3 nights in Prague, by flying
Then 3 nights in Rome, by flying
Fly home from Rome
Personally I'd choose Venice or Florence over Prague to make it just a single internal European flight.
Posted by
🏝️ Hobe Sound, FL⛱️
3161 posts
My personal advice would be to cut the number of destinations to three, four at the outside, to really enjoy your visit. Even if connecting city to city by air and having just carry on luggage, deduct at least half a day for each change of cities. Let's say you're flying from Rome to Paris. First you'll spend time getting to Termini for the ride to the airport and then arrive early enough to clear security and board your flight. That'll be about 2 hours - at least. The flight takes just over two hours and now you've got to either take the RER, bus and/or cab to get to your hotel and check in which will be another two hours. So that's about 6+ hours and the good part of a day is gone. Even if you get a 7AM flight, it'd be close to noon before you could start to see the sights.
Since this is your first time in Europe, plan to enjoy your time there. It's a vacation, not a race. Decide which cities are most important to you and save the others for your next trip. If you try to do too much, it might make you so dissatisfied that you'll never want to return. That would be a shame. "Far niente!"
Posted by
Washington DC
27109 posts
I'd prefer an itinerary that didn't jump around so much that you must fly two legs, but I understand wanting to see Prague and Rome. I think your interests will affect how rushed this trip feels. London, Amsterdam, Paris and Rome all have many sights that first-time travelers often want to visit. If you are a museum person (many museums in the first three cities) and want to visit the classical sights in Rome (plus museums), you can easily spend every bit of time you will have inside those sights or rushing from one to the other, with not much opportunity to feel like you're in a foreign country. If, on the other hand, you're thinking more about wandering around, enjoying the atmosphere, etc., you may be satisfied.
Posted by
Costa Mesa, CA, USA
503 posts
Personally, I think it's way too many countries. As the previous posters have pointed out, you should plan about 3/4 of day lost to travel, checking out/checking in, etc., etc. when you change locations. So the question you need to ask yourself is do you want to spend 25% of your vacation traveling on trains and planes or would you rather see more of the countries you've chosen to visit? Personally, I'd drop Rome and Prague. Fly to London, Eurostar to Paris and then train to Amsterdam flying home out of Amsterdam. This gives you a nice amount of time in each city with the ability to fit in a day trip from any of these cities if you so desire.
Posted by
Brisbane, Australia
7175 posts
I plan to fly between places in order to save time and arrive in the new cities in the mornings.
Unfortunately you are misguided here. Early flights means getting up at a hellish hour, plus the stress of getting to the airport during rush hour, not to mention the possibility of a missed flight. With transit, checkin, security and flying time all added up, it is highly unlikely that you will get to your new hotel before afternoon.
Posted by
Tunbridge Wells
6113 posts
I have just flown this week from London to Portugal. I live 45 minutes away from Gatwick, which is quicker than you could get there from central London. I left the house at 3.45am and arrived at my accommodation in Portugal, 40 minutes from the airport at 11.50am and the flight was on time. It has taken me 2 days to recover from the sleep I lost by getting up so early. Hiring the car took 30 minutes, but I would probably have had to wait this long for public transport. I have an EU passport which is quicker. Do you want to do this every 3 days?
I recommend that you restrict your trip to London, Paris and Rome and fly open jaw as you plan. There is plenty to keep you occupied in each place plus day trips.
Posted by
7662 posts
I suggest that you eliminate Prague and perhaps Rome, since they are not geographical close to the other cities.
London for three days is a bit short.
If you added Belgium by visiting Brugges and Ghent or Brussels, your travel would be a lot less. You can see Brugges and Ghent in one day and Brussels in one more.
If you don't want to do that, add some time in the countryside near Paris or London. Canterbury, Salesbury, Stonehenge and Bath are great options. For near Paris, there is Normandy or the Loire Valley.