planning our first trip to Europe (my husband and I) for 2011...
we know we want to go to Rome and Paris
We were thinking of goint to Madrid, then Rome and then Paris 12 days in total with travel
then i started thinking of goig to Rome 3-4 days, then Venice one day, Florence one day and then Paris 3-4 days
What do you guys think....help
Posted by
Pensacola
9110 posts
Stick with the original plan: Rome and Paris (with maybe a one-day excursion out of each). Even adding Madrid will short-change you in each of the three cities.
Alternatively, keep the whole trip in Italy with a couple days in each of the lesser cities.
Posted by
baton rouge, la, US
269 posts
I agree; twelve days between those two cities is just barely enough. Plus, you can take day trips out of both. But adding more cities to the mix would significantly impact your enjoyment of the trip from my point of view. The last time we went to Rome, we spent eight days there alone (including a one day excursion to Pompeii) and could have easily stayed longer. Enjoy your trip -- sounds wonderful!
Posted by
Phoenix, AZ, USA
1035 posts
The Rick Stevesism that most resonates with me is to "assume you will return."
Doing that not only liberates you from feeling like you must see everything in one trip, it reinforces the idea that you will return -- and you will!!
Posted by
Vernon, Canada
32212 posts
shira,
With such a short trip, keep in mind that you'll lose the first day in flight times and the last day will be spent on the trip home. Using open jaw flights would be a really good idea!
As the others have said, it's important not to try and fit too many destinations into such a short trip. Which route to choose will likely depend on the flights you're able to get to & from P.R.
You could either start in Rome or Paris. I'd suggest leaving Venice for another visit, but you could perhaps fit Madrid in (and you may find there's better availability of flights to & from Madrid). Which cities are of most interest to you?
As this is your first trip to Europe, I'd suggest reading the Guidebook Europe Through The Back Door before you go, as it provides a lot of information on travelling efficiently in Europe.
Happy travels!
Posted by
Minneapolis, MN, USA
1525 posts
If read a post from someone in Europe saying they were looking forward to their first trip to the USA and planned to go from New York City to Dallas to Los Angeles, would you think that was a good trip? Would you think they could claim to have any meaningful understanding of the USA with that visit?
The point is; of course you can do the trip you describe. But why? What do expect to learn or remember from such a trip?
My advice is to pick the ONE country that most interests you and go there. While there, spend at least half of your time away from big cities.
Posted by
Madison, WI, USA
524 posts
I suggest you start by buying the RS Italy book. Once you read thru it, I think you will see that you will find so many things just within Italy that you want to see and you would regret rushing in and out. (Venice, Florence, the Cinque Terra, Amalfi Coast and on).
If you prefer the idea of Paris, the same could be done only for France. But do consider getting one of the two RS books and reading through it so you know what the country has to offer before trying to fill your itinerary with other big attractions.
My very first trip to Europe was in 2005 and I toured through Italy. I really thought that it was going to be my only time I would ever get to Europe...and I was wrong. I have been back repeatedly since. The overwhelming advice on this site is to always trim your itinerary to focus on only one country/region. Italy, France and Spain are all major undertakings in their own right.