5 Citites in 10 Days-Too Ambitious?

I understand your desire to see four different cities, but I think you should narrow it down to two. If you try to see all four, you won't have much time in each, and you'll be frustrated that you can't spend more time in each city. If you only see two cities, you'll be frustrated that you didn't see the other two. Either way, you'll experience frustration. But with the two-city plan, you'll spend less money and you'll spend more time doing things and seeing sites. That's how I look at it. But if you're desperate to see all these cities and don't mind just a quick brush of each, then go for it.

I'd recommend either just Italy (maybe 2 locations with day trips) OR Paris and Amsterdam. Really with 10 days, your best money saving bet would be to pick ONE city and do a FEW day trips. Rome OR Paris.

Everybody is different. Few times I tried to cramp too many destinations into one not too long trip and I found that it is too hurried and I don't like it. Last time we did Italy and we also had 10 days like you. We stayed 3 days in Venice. Getting of the train at night and coming to Grand Canal- absolute wow moment. Then 3 days Rome. Hot (in September), crowded, lot of pickpockets trying to do their job thankfully not succeeding. We enjoyed Rome but it was demanding and tiring. Then 4 days Cinque Terra. 5 beautiful little towns situated in cliffs above Ligurian Sea. As Rick Steves says- vacation from vacation. We stayed in Vernazza and last night in Monterosso because of better train connection to Milan. In CT you hike, swim and enjoy life. We both liked the most CT then Venice then Rome. Originally we also thought about Florence but there was no room in 10 days for it. So next time Florence and hill towns of Tuscany.

Claud, your revised itinerary is still utterly crazy, if not outright impossible. First, how many days do you really have? Be honest with yourself. Don't count the day you arrive from the US and don't count the day you leave for home, regardless of what time your flights might be. How many full days does that leave you? The first day after your arrival you may be about half zonked out due to jet lag, even if you're young and rip roaring ready to go (can you get a good night's sleep on the flight over? many of us can't). Regardless, even if you have 10 full days, you need to pick 2 or at most 3 places, that's it. Remember, every time you move from one place to another, you lose half a day, even if you're moving quickly and efficiently (i.e. from city center direct to another city center by train); if you fly somewhere, that will usually eat most of a day. You don't have days to burn zooming around. You don't have time to split the trip between two regions that are distant from each other (and doing so will cost more). Pick one: either northern Italy, or Paris + Amsterdam. You can have a nice trip if you do so. Good luck!

Just understand that you'll be be spending a good portion of four of those 10 days travelling , so you really only have a day, maybe a day and a half to actually spend in each location. You might want to edit out something. Like you could just do AMS & Paris, or, just do Italy. I know it's tough when there is so much you really want to see but only have a limited amount of time. You WILL be going back to Europe - it's like crack - you'll be addicted after your first trip.
How are you planning on travelling between these places?

This would be ALMOST doable if you had a Star-Trek-like teleportation machine that would magically beam you from the Cinque Terra to Paris (and all your other favorite cities as well). But without that machine, this itinerary is, I am sorry to say, quite insane. You would be wasting your money. Do whatever you have to do to save another $1000 and add at least 5 days to the trip. Then, at least, it would only be terribly rushed, instead of insane. (FYI; this is type of question that people sometimes post as a joke)

Too too much for sure. Add in your transpo and you'll have little time anywhere. Save CT for another time. RS has done a good job selling this place. He should have a statue there. How about something like this? Fly into CDG -spend three nights Train to AMS - spend two nights Fly to Rome - spend 5 nights; day trip to Florence
Fly home from Rome (FCO) Even better than that is fly into CDG and spend 5 nights and then to Rome for 5 nights and home from there.

A little too ambitious imo. Why not stay in Italy as you have 3 locations there and and add more days to Rome & Florence. You will save lots of euros and lots of transit time and really get to enjoy the splendors of Rome & Florence. The euros you save by not going to Ams and Paris could prob get you a couple of more days in Italy somewhere. Tuscany is very close to Florence and you can take a 1 hr cheap bus ride there. e if you need more help. But def save Ams & paris for another time as those 2 cities are blockbusters to see.

You won't see much at that rate. CT is not a city, and nowhere as unique as the others. Much as I love Amsterdam its out of the way. What attracts you about Amsterdam? Not waiting for your answer, moving at the speed you will be, I say focus on Rome, Florence and Paris. 3 days each is far better. I'm not even encouraging you to go to Venice because it seems you want to go to Paris. But it would be cheaper, easier, and more straightforward for you to have 3 days each in Venice, Florence and Rome. Still too fast, but better. How are you planning on leaping from place to place? Remember travel time, and time checking in and out of lodging.

You're having second thoughts because your gut instinct is telling you that this is way too much. I'm exhausted just looking at it. Honestly, if it were my trip, I'd stay in Italy and leave Paris and Amsterdam for some other time. 10 days would be fine for Rome, Florence, and CT. I'd give Rome 4 nights, Florence 3, and CT 3 (or 2 if you've only got 9 nights. Remember that you lose a day flying from the U.S.). How do you plan to get to Paris and/or Amsterdam? You're looking at a 10 hour journey by train from Florence to Paris, and twice that long for Amsterdam. Flying will save you a bit of time, but will probably still take a good 5 hours between check-in, security, flight delays, etc. & isn't usually a good choice for someone on a tight budget.

Thank you all so much for your thoughtful and PROMPT responses! Consider me convinced. I'm definitely scratching CT from the list, although I'm still toying with Paris & Amsterdam. There is a Ryanair flight from Milan to Paris that would be within my budget. The rest of my travel would be via train. One final question: If I were to add that 1 night to either Rome or Florence, which would you suggest? I'm mainly interested in historical sites as opposed to art museums, so I'm thinking perhaps Rome. That would bring me to: Rome- 3 Nights Florence- 2 Nights Paris- 2 Nights
Amsterdam- 2 Nights Thanks again! Claud

Rome is magnificent and if you are into historical sites rather than art, drop Amsterdam and add those nights to Rome. Most American do 48 hours in Rome and do not come away with an understanding of that amazingly complex city. And as Liz points out, you actually save money by staying put. If you are bored with Rome after three days, go to Pompeii or day-trip to Florence or Orvieto. Stay in Italy for 10 days. We did 21 days and left wanting more. Paris does not compare, IMHO. I did Amsterdam in my college days and my only memory is slogging through art galleries I thought I "had" to see. I recommend 5 nights Rome then decide on more Italy or 5 nights Paris. Do skip the CT if you want history. And one night in the CT is hardly worth it for the time spent coming-and-going.

"There is a Ryanair flight from Milan to Paris that would be within my budget." Milan? Did you mean Rome? You can find any number of budget airline connections within your existing cities without having to travel to Milan. EDIT: Seems like as a student, you may have more time than money. Do you have time to stretch this to 17 - 21 days? What is your budget once you are on the ground? Are you using hostels? If you can stretch your Euro, you may be able to see more.

Rome + Florence + Paris is doable, though it'll be expensive since your travel will all be focused in three expensive cities. It'd also depend on if you can find a decent budget flight from Rome or Florence to Paris. Don't waste time heading up to Milan. Rome + Florence + CT is doable, and makes the most sense to me. You won't have to deal with shifting countries/languages, and there will be a nice balance of cities and towns, history and art and relaxation. Paris + Amsterdam is doable. 3 cities in 10 (possibly 9) days really is going to be the max you can fit in, assuming you actually want to do more than just cross places off of a map.

Note that Ryanair doesn't fly to Paris but to Beauvais which is an hour north in the middle of nowhere.

As Nigel says watch out for Ryanair. When they say they fly to a particular city the airport is more often than not nowhere near the city. They use smaller airports to cut down on airport tax etc so they can offer their cheaper tickets. For instance Frankfurt Hahn is not even in the same region of Germany as Frankfurt city. Worth checking distance to city before you book, but usually it still works out a good deal if you only have hand luggage. Cases are charged at £40.00 per case! And you have to be clever to avoid paying their travel insurance when booking, which can be more than the cost of the flight sometimes. Make sure you cancel taking their insurance if you book online.

You're probably OD'ed on advice by now, but even your revised itinerary is too much. Each time you change locations the travel is going to cost you half a day. It's not just the flight or the train ride, it's getting to and from the stations, checking in and checking out, etc. You'll find that 2 nights in a city like Paris or Rome really works out to one full day - hardly worth it. At the most you should have 3 destinations. I like Michael 1's suggestion of 5 nights Paris & 5 nights Rome/Florence, making Florence maybe an overnight side trip from Rome. Fly open jaw into Paris and out of Rome, or do it in the reverse order.

Claud, I KNOW we sound like a bunch of ol' fogey, sticks-in-the-mud. Some of us may be ;-) But please trust us. You don't want to see 4 cities; you want to see 3 COUNTRIES. Three far-flung countries. The European train system is a dream, and there's some great airline routes, but even IF your name is Jennie, Samantha, or Capt Kirk, the transportation necessary for this trip - as a 10-day trip - is frankly impossible. If you want to see anything, that is. But I understand the compulsion completely. My husband and I spent time this morning with a map of Europe and mapped out The First Draft of our next trip. Oh no - Not Enough Days!!! And we've made several trips, too...We each immediately had to let go of some of our 'definite' towns. You just have to. We'll go there again - and hopefully those places cut this morning make it in the next round. With 10 FULL days, it's 4 days MAX if you're talking something like Venice-Florence-Siena-Rome (an example of distance traveled only). And even that itinerary is too cramped. Yes, it's physically possible. So is childbirth. You wanna do THAT every 2-3 days? I know this is not what you wanted to hear...

All, Thank you kindly for your great input! Although not exactly what I wanted to hear, I appreciate the honesty. I'll think long and hard about it before I make my next move. Thanks again, Claud

Eileen, "Yes, it's physically possible. So is childbirth..." I love that line! Can I borrow it?

I think that line deserves to be on a permanent post somewhere in this site! A real hall-of-famer!

Claud, I have to agree with the others. This is too much to do in the days you have allowed. I presume that you are using 9 days, not counting the day you depart or arrival. In 3 weeks I have gone from Germany/Netherlands/France/Switzerland/Italy/Austria and back to Germany, and even with this time, a lot of traveling was done by train in between. So, I would either focus on Italy or then on another trip France/Netherlands. You could either stay in Rome or Florence and day trip from these cities. I probably would stay in Florence 4 or 5 days in this area, and day trip to Assisi, Cortona, Pisa, Lucca, Arezzo, Then stay in Rome for 4 or 5 days and day trip to Tivoli, Orvieto, Ostia Antica, and Castel Gandolfo. Rome is a fascinating city, and it is very busy, and fast paced to try to see everything. So just see the main areas of Rome, Colesseum, St Peter's, Spanish Steps and Piazza Venezia. The other cities mentioned above are enjoyable and I really liked Lucca, Arezzo, and Cortona. If you choose France/Netherlands, I would spend 3-4 days in Amsterdam, and day trip to Alsmeer, Alkmaar, and Haarlem. In Paris, it is Paris, and it is a wonderful city, I would stay 3-4 days, and of course, see the Louvre, The Eiffel Tower, and just walk along the Seine. Maybe take a side trip to Versailles. These are just suggestions and it depends on your time, the money budget and what you would really like to see. Plus, remember you can always plan to go back to Europe in the future.Have a good trip and congratulations on your graduation.

The last time I did a trip that involved multiple cities in a short amount of time was my 3rd trip to Europe 3-4 years ago, where I went to Germany. My mission in Germany was to see WWII sites, eat awesome food, drink awesome beer. We stayed 2 nights in Berlin, 1 in Dresden, 1 Nuremburg, 3 Munich, 1 in Rothenburg, and 1 in Cologne. Our mission what accomplished. But we missed out on sooo much, especially the art or general museums in Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. No I am thinking of my next trip and that trip is to return to Germany to see what I missed the first time around. At this time in my life (I am 35) I no longer feel that insane whirl-wind travel is good for me. It stresses me out thinking about it. The minimal time I spend in a place is 2 days, but that place is small (ie Siena, Assisi, Rothenburg, Bruges). I could not imagine spending only 2 days in cities like Rome or Paris. I didn't even like Rome but I would say that it would need at least 4 days just to see what one needs to see. If I had to do your trip with your time allotted, I would take the 3 nights from Cinque Terre & Florence and add them to Rome and Paris. 3 nights in Rome, 4 in Paris, 2 in A'dam. I say 4 in Paris and not in Rome because one of your Paris days will be eaten up by train travel, really giving you 3.5 days.

Claud,
Since you are a graduate student I assume you are fairly young. You may be DYING to see all these places but they will still be there in a year or two or hundreds. Pick a couple places enjoy them at a decent pace, plan to keep going back to Europe to continue your quest every year or two. Europe is not a checklist, take time to truly appreciate where you are.

"Europe is not a checklist"- wow, this thread is full of great quotes.

"Eileen, "Yes, it's physically possible. So is childbirth..." I love that line! Can I borrow it?" Sure, Randy! 'I think that line deserves to be on a permanent post somewhere in this site! A real hall-of-famer!" I think we really should have a 'Hall of Fame' on this website; wouldn't that be a hoot?!? Ah, the memories come flooding back to me now...lots of worthy HoFers over the years... Claud, after you've rethought your trip, please come back and let us know what you're thinking...we'll still be here! Even the old fogeys...NOT that I know of any...

Hi, I took my second trip solo to Europe right after finishing grad school, also on a shoe string budget. If that's the case why did you not choose to reserve dorm rooms at hostels as a way to cut down on expenses, instead of hotels? If you have 10 full days, I would suggest cutting out a city, my choice would be Amsterdam. The other choice is Rome, from a logistical reason. Either concentrate on Italy and France OR Florence-Paris-Amsterdam. Another way to reduce the expenses because of your tight budget is to take that night train Florence-Paris, direct. Don't spend on getting a sleeper or couchette, just reserve and pay for the seat and sleep upright. This way you'll have 3 nights in Paris. Your schedule is tight ...I think you can pull it off provided that you're not adverse to making some sacrifices due to time and budget. Is staying at campsites an option since you're travelling light? I only know of them in Germany...Berlin and Hamburg.

Do you have your flights yet? remember you will be going back - you're young. If you are into Rome and out of Amsterdam - I would say do Rome, Paris, and Amsterdam.

All, I will definitely be back to you as I get closer to my trip. Aside from the fact that I think you've provided valuable information, your responses have been highly entertaining! Many thanks for sharing your own experiences, as they serve as a great point of reference. ("old fogies" or not!). Claud

Having done this myself, I do understand your urge to see as much as possible. And I learned some hard truths. One must allow "breathing room." There might be unexpected delays, missed connections, getting lost, getting incorrect information that leads to more delays, long lines, bathroom breaks, meal breaks, not finding the thing you need when you need it and adding unexpected stops like a trip to the pharmacy or doctor. And you might make new friends and the vibes are right to sit and chat longer, to have another glass of wine. Also, on a map, from the comfort of home, distances don't look too bad. But in reality, sometimes it takes longer to get somewhere.
Whatever you decide, have a wonderful trip and all the best!