60+ couple wants to see Paris, Milan and Venice

How long is your trip?

If you’ve never been to Italy, I’d put Rome or Florence w-a-y before Milan.

Since you’ve been to Paris why not fly into Venice and sleep there for three nights then take a direct train to Florence and sleep there for four nights and include a day trip to Siena by direct bus before moving on to Rome for four nights and flying home from there or to Paris.

My trip is about 8-10 days.

My trip is about 8-10 days.

Does that include the travel days to/from the US?

For 8-10 days, like others said, skip Paris, concentrate on Italy. If money is a concern, look to several cities, Milan and Rome primarily for fares. Also look at Venice and Florence, but those will require more changes likely within Europe, and more cost, but the cost may be offset some by in-country travel to get to those cities.

If Milan and Venice interest you, go for it, don't listen to the chorus of "Oh no, go here instead". With 8-10 days, and being January, sticking to cities is probably a good strategy. The coast, or hills of Tuscany are not going to have the same charm. You could probably easily add a stop like Florence or Bologna.

If you have specific interests, let us know, and that can prompt some ideas.

8-10 days on the ground means 9-11 nights in Europe. IMO that's too short to include Paris, especially since you've been there before. Fly into Venice - the best place to get over jetlag and soak up the atmosphere. Choose between Milan and Rome for your flight home. Milan isn't a bad choice since Rome has so much to see, it's best left for a separate trip to Italy. There are great places to see in the north - Verona, Padua, Florence, and end with a night in Milan. You can see the main sights in Milan in 1 to 1-1/2 days.

We've been to Europe in all seasons, and January is not the best time to go. We were once in Venice the end of a January, and we about froze to death--snow from there north. The water was up on St. Marks Square and we had to walk on elevated wooden sidewalks.

If possible, can you put your trip off to say . . . . . . . the first of March?

Visiting Paris, Milan and Venice is possible, however the trip may not run very smooth since you'll have to fly so many legs including your trip over and back. Dealing with airports right now is not enjoyable.

You'd do better to fly in to Rome and take the train to Florence and over to Venice--for a smoother, less frustrating trip. Paris is a trip best done when you visit London--and travel between the cities on the Eurostar.

We were in Venice in June--for about our 10th time. Italy is a place you never tire of visiting.

January in Italy would be great! And far fewer tourists (except on Epiphany weekend, January 6-8th). I've been to Venice twice in December & it was frigid both times, something about the damp on the water made it much colder than expected. Florence is 160 miles SW of Venice & just felt much warmer to me in winter, would that be an alternative? Given it's not high tourist season, could you book Florence for a week & cancel your booking early if you decided to go to Venice in fine weather without flooding for a few days? Or leave Venice for a warmer month & fly into Milan & out of Rome, LOTS to do in Rome!

Agree, skip Paris ... my opinion, fly into Rome for 3-4 days, train to Florence for 3-4 days, train to Milan for last few days and then home (reason for Milan over Venice is the Last Supper should be a must-see bucket list item for everyone IMHO) ... if Venice is a must, then slice a day each off Rome and Florence ... or skip Florence but if it was me, I'd take Florence over Venice ... haven't been to Venice in January (we went in May) but tooling around the waterways that time of year doesn't sound like fun (if I'm going to be cold, I'd rather be in snowy Bavaria or Switzerland).

Why not skip Milan and do Florence, or for that matter, do an Italian trip, Rome, Florence and Venice.

If you are efficient travelers, (skilled with trains, fast packers, able to throw some extra money at your arrangements to make them smooth, etc.) than doing those three in about 10 days is doable. But first, give some thought to WHY you travel - great food, art, architecture, just being there, etc. Then consider what each of those three cities excels at. Each of these cities, to me, is "a LOT," even off season, so I agree, consider just Italy. (You also would have just one language to work on.) If you have not considered adding Florence, please do - great art and food, walkable, classic "must do" sights. Have a wonderful time!

But first, give some thought to WHY you travel - great food, art, architecture, just being there, etc. Then consider what each of those three cities excels at.

Thanks KC! This could be a thread on it's own, and included as part of the answer to many questions about itineraries. When I ask friends who've joined me on trips, they inevitably name the things that are furthest from the main sites, simple pleasures, a great meal, & OK, maybe ONE great museum & church, but not ten.

I think you would find that these three are just too far apart to do any of them justice. If you take a look at the itinerary for Rick Steve’s Venice/Florence/Rome tour that will give you a good idea of what you can see, and how long it would take. I did this tour a few years ago and it was a great tour, but I wanted more time in each city.Venice is one of my favourite cities, and I will go every chance I get, but I would want to stay more than a couple nights. I spent a week there in May. If you want to see three cities maybe Venice, Florence and Milan would work for you? But, with less than two weeks I would be tempted to just visit two cities to limit the time spent on a train getting to the next place. Only you can decide which place is important to you to see, but keep in mind that if you want to go to a city just to see one or two sights, then it might be best to leave it for another trip instead of using half a day travelling to get to a city where there is only one sight you want to see.

Maybe fly into Milan and spend 2 nights, train to Venice and spend 3 nights, train to Rome and spend the rest of the nights there and fly out. Or vice versa.

Thank you everyone for your insightful comments and advice! We will rethink out trip to all those cities at once. At our age we are still pretty active but it might not be the best thing to do in the winter.

The one additional issue is footing. Many of these cities have stone streets, worn down by hundreds of years and hundreds of thousands of feet. We are 70 and 73. We were just in Florence, Milan, Siena, and other cities in N Italy. When it rained, I found that only a sneaker-type shoe had adequate traction to walk comfortably. There were many times I found myself feeling a little slippage. So, ensure that your shoe choices will do well in a N Italy winter situation, where there might be snow, and certainly frost with water.

FAITH, When I reread your post, I had to snicker a bit. Nothing personal, but you're implying 60 is old. I'm 71 and spend September in London, France and Venice. I'm planning for next year's trip to Germany and Austria. Many on the forum are my age or older. On the South of France tour, one lady was 84, a couple both in their early 80's and many of us in our early to late 70s. 60 isn't old!

You don't have much trip time when you add in travel days. Having just been in all three, I'd say skip Paris since you've been there before. I only spend a night in Milan, after a three hour train delay in Genoa, but from the little I saw, I wouldn't go back. Start in Venice for three days. As someone recommended, take the train to Florence (I haven't been there yet). If you haven't been to Rome, take the train and end your trip there.

Do you need help with winter packing suggestions? There's a search function to help weed through posts. Or ask questions.

Enjoy your trip!!

I am an advocate of smaller cities. So, if you skip Paris as others have suggested, you can start in Milan for just two days and spend several days getting to Venice via train. Or, vice-versa and start in Venice and finish in Milan.

via?

Verona-Padua?
Parma-Bologna-Padua?
Bologna-Ravenna?
The first week of Rick's 3 week Italy itinerary ... but perhaps not in the winter. https://www.ricksteves.com/europe/italy/itinerary

Verona: https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/read/articles/verona-italy-city-of-romance
Padua: https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/read/articles/padua-students-saints-and-scarpette
Ravenna: https://www.ricksteves.com/europe/italy/ravenna
Parma-Bologna: https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/italy/bologna-included-in-rick-s-tv-series

And in Venice, consider spending a few hours or half a day to take the vaporetto over to Murano if you like glass, or to Burano if you like lace.

Given this is a January trip, maybe start all over and travel to only to Naples and Sicily and perhaps Puglia?

Faith, come back to let us know what you decided and what your travel plans are.

With limited time, I agree skip Paris and spend time in Italy. Uniworld has a river boat cruise on the Po River - Visits Milan, Venice and Northern Italy. Flies into Milan and out of Venice. We are in our 60's - had a wonderful time last year. Able to walk to St. Marks Square in Venice from ship.. This includes a 2 night hotel stay in Milan, bus transfer to Venice where you embark on the river boat.

I'm agreeing with most of the previous posters: 8 - 10 days is not enough to see three cities, especially when they are in two different countries. You must take travel time into consideration. We loved Milan, and spent about 4 or 5 days there a few years ago. And we spent 5 days in Venice just this year, and are planning at least 10 days next time.

And secondly, 60 is definitely not old! Stan and I are in our 70s, and recently finished a 7 week trip to France and Italy. Like horsewoofie, we have had travel companions in their 80s, some of whom put the "young'uns" to shame.

I think you could enjoy Milan and Venice in one trip. I would save Paris for another time. I think all 3 cities on one trip is too much regardless of one’s age.

We were just in Italy. We visited Milan, Ravenna, Padova, Torino, Pisa, Siena, and Firenze in 22 days.

Of the 7 places we spent time in, Milan was the least interesting. There is the Duomo, La Scala, Naviglio (canal) district. We spent 3 nights, and could have done it in 2.

Paul-of-the-Frozen-North. Sounds like you had a great trip and I love some of the smaller cities you mention, such as Padua. I could agree with you that three nights in Milan is more than enough.

But on our first night, as we wandered around and met a local couple, we learned that the weekend we were in town "Piano City" was happening. So, in addition to seeing the Duomo, The Last Supper, and other sights, we spent a good part of two afternoons and one evening listening to jazz and classical piano perfrmances on three stages in one park. (There were more concerts in other venues throughout the City.) What I thought would be the klunker of our 2-1/2 week trip turned out to be a highlight. Of course, that was in May, not January.

Still, it's worth going on-line to see what is happening a month or two in advance of actually embarking. perhaps a 'tweak' to the schedule might be in order.

Fred: Not disagreeing. Milan was a good place to start on our travels. We decided to skip the "Last Supper" so that took off pressure from the Milan visit. We easily filled 2.5 days.

FAITH, for planning purposes, anytime you change location, whether you are flying or taking the train, you will lose most of a day of your vacation time, just in getting from one place to another. Even if it looks like a short flight, there is hotel check in and out, transport to and from airport, waiting, check-in and security at the airport, etc. So with limited time, less is more.

Stan - I tend to agree with you about travel days, but with one caveat.

Where short distances are involved and you are travelling by train, with rail stations in or practically next to city centers, the logistics might be a little different.

For example, we travelled by train from Venice to Verona. Left Venice about 9 or 10 in the morning and got off the train in Padova (Padua) about 45 minutes later. Put our luggage in storage, walked into town, visited the market, had lunch, and spent an hour or so in the Scroveigni Chapel to see the art works by Giotto. Our short stay was enjoyable, though we did not have enough time to also include the Basilica of St. Anthony. We got a train out of Padova at about 4 pm, arrived in Verona about 5, checked into our hotel and walked around town for an hour or so before we found a nice restaurant for dinner.

Travelling light, with a single wheeled suitcase (small enough to go into an overhead bin) and perhaps a light second bag or backpack makes it possible. Not so much with more gear.

anytime you change location, whether you are flying or taking the train, you will lose most of a day of your vacation time, just in getting from one place to another

That depends on your travel style and planning ... for example, we're heading over to the German Christmas Markets in a little more than a week from now ... after arriving in Munich at 7am, we go to the hotel to drop the bags then we're off to the Augustiner Brewery (if open) and lunch before taking the train to Augsburg for their market and Angel Performance, then back to Munich around 8pm ... the next day has more sights and markets around Munich before heading out at 6:30am the next morning for Cologne where, after the train ride and dropping bags at the hotel, we're off to the cathedral and their markets by around noon ... rinse and repeat for most of the following 2 weeks ... since my days of closing a bar are long in the past, we get out early so we can have at least half a day in the next location which lets us feel like we haven't wasted a day ... we'll may also sleep in on a day where we are in a location for a few days to recharge ... not saying this works for everyone but it does for us (and I venture to guess for some others also) ... full disclosure, we're mid-60s with no physical limitations so we're fortunate to be able to do this while we can.