3 Weeks in Europe

Hi David. There is no 'right' answer; the answer for you depends on your interests. I assume you have read Rick Steves or other books so have an idea of how you would spend your time in London and Paris? If that much time sounds right to you based on research, then it looks like a good itinerary for a first trip! Enjoy your trip!

First, congratulations on your first big trip. Second, Congratulations on going at a reasonably slow pace, overall. Most first timers try to go to 12 locations in the time you are taking to go to 5. Good choice. Everyone's tastes are different. Having said that, Here's are my impressions; 1) Not enough time in Rome relative to Paris and London. There is arguably more "stuff" to see in Rome than anywhere else. You might consider evening things out a bit - like 5-5-3-2-4 or 5-5-2-2-5. 2) Are you really, really sure you want to spend 21 consecutive days in big, dense, intense cities? Don't get me wrong, they are all great places. But would you enjoy spending 21 consecutive days in Boston, NYC, Philly, and DC? Have you no interest at all in smaller towns or natural scenery? 3) Do you plan on ever going back to Europe? I ask because the "big three" of London, Paris and Rome are all on your itinerary. That might be an ideal plan if you had a terminal illness. But if you think you'll live for a while longer, I would split them up a bit and plan on coming back. But that's just me. If you are a very city person, you might have a great time.

There's more than enough in Paris and London to keep you occupied in each city for 5 full days. And if you wanted to get outside the city and see a little bit of the surrounding countryside, you can easily join a guided day tour or take a train and do it yourself. Overall, your itinerary seems quite reasonable and if you really feel you are short changing Rome (which also could occupy you for 5+ days), then personally I would cut Florence and tack on the extra day in Rome (but that's because I love Venice and am rather indifferent to Florence even though we have family in the area, so I've been there enough to know my preference would always be Venice - your priorities may be different). @Randy: Didn't you just apologize to a poster on another thread when you mentioned someone keeling over to make your point and she immediately responded her father was very ill? Talking about terminal illness to make your point may not be such a great idea when you really don't know what someones reasoning is for planning what they are going to do on a trip. Just saying you may not want to put your foot in your mouth a 2nd time...

Heh heh... I think you have a great first-time itinerary. Rome could fill more than three days, but you can't do everything. There's always a compromise on every trip. Have fun.

What time of year are you planning to go? We usually try to hit the southern most part of trip (Italy) first as it gets VERY hot in the summer. If you are going in the spring, it would make more sense to start in the South and work your way up to the North to hope that it has warmed up a bit in the North by the time you get there. Just a thought. I like the previous persons thought on leaving one of your BIG cities out--like London and going another time to British Isles. That way you can concentrate on much more such as Switzerland, Austria, etc. so as to relax for a few days in between Paris and Rome. Good Luck!

David: You simply don't have enough time for Florence, Rome, AND Venice, AND to travel by train to these places; I would consider dropping Italy altogether if this is in summer, when crowds and heat take their toll. With those 7 nights, you could instead take a side trip from London to Bath or the Cotswold villages and/or from Paris to the D-Day beaches in Normandy and/or stay in romantic Bruges, the "Venice of the north." These smaller places will add nice contrast to the major destinations you've chosen. As Rick advises, the North is a good place for a first exposure to Europe; there's a certain amount of uncertainty and anxiety that comes with traveling south of the Alps on your first trip. If Italy is an absolute must, then I suggest you fly there from Paris or London to save some time and money. 3 days in Florence and 4 in Rome, with a train trip in between the two, is about right. Do Venice another time. Fly home from Rome. Alternatively: Drop Italy except for Venice (fly there) and do a side-trip or two as suggested above from Paris and/or London. Then fly home from Venice.

Hi David. I agree with Russ - you don't have enough time to do Venice and Florence justice. Put those days toward Rome so you'll have 3-4 days there. I'm a city person myself when I travel so I don't think that London, Paris, and Rome will be overkill. If you have enough time to see everything that you want to see and include built-in down time, you'll be fine.

David, I normally don't respond to itinerary question, and won't go into detail, but I do have 2 observations. It seems to me that you are taking it steady for 2 weeks, giving London and Paris plenty of time each to show you their wares. Then it seems that you run up the gears and fly at top speed through Italy. So why go to the expense and time of going to Italy for such a cursory blitz? Maybe just Venice? Have you calculated the time for travel for each of the relocations?

Thanks for all of the replies! It's all been very helpful! One of the reasons why I thought about spending a full day in Venice and Florence each is that after researching it seemed like that one can see those cities in a day or two. However, right now I'm thinking that we will save Venice for next time and use the days for either Florence or most likely Rome (going about as Russ suggested, 2-3 days in Florence and the rest in Rome), as there seems to be a lot more to see there than I first thought.

David - first off, everyone is different, and only you know what's really important to you. When I looked at your ininerary my first thought was - there is absolutely no way I would do that trip because it's all big cities jam packed with people! But that's me, and you may feel totally different. The real reason I wanted to post a reply to you was because unlike most of the other responders I think your Italy itinerary is fine. We did the exact thing one trip, and it was perfect for us 2 nights Venice - 2 nights Florence followed by 3 nights in Rome. However, we are definately travelers who prefer small towns to big cities (with the exception of London - which is my all time Favorite City). 3 days in Rome was almost too much for us, and 5 days in Paris would definately be too much for me, but I am aware that most people would be happy spending weeks there. Each to his own. Have a great trip!

I also wanted to say that I don't think there is anything wrong with your original itinerary. When I first started travelling, I rarely spent more than 2 nights in the same place. It gave me a taste of many different places and I loved the variety and the excitement of arriving in a new city. Now, after 25+ years of travel, I generally prefer to spend more time in each place and to take things slower, but this would not have suited me when I first started traveling. There is nothing wrong with getting a taste of something, particularly when you have limited time. It helps you decide where to return next. It also helps you learn what you like and don't like. Your itinerary is quite doable. Of course you won't see everything in any of these places, but you will certainly be able to see some of each city and you can focus on those things that you are most interested in. While I think it would be great to add time to all your Italy locations, if you are working within a 3 week window, your allocation will work. I know that I would prefer your original schedule (on a first trip) over some of the other suggestions. It is kind of exciting to see a variety of places. If it were me, I'd probably cut a night out of Paris and a night out of London and add those to Italy. But it is your trip and not mine and I always think it is important to go with your gut feel and choose places that are interesting to you. You mention that you will be travelling by train the entire time. The one change that I would suggest is that you fly from Paris to Italy to save some time. If you did that, you could consider changing the order of your cities in Italy (e.g. fly Paris to Rome then Florence then Venice and fly home from Venice).

I also think your original itinerary is good if you plan to stick with cities. I also like the order you plan to do it in. Flying into an English speaking country will help ease you into the trip. By the time you get to Italy you will be better able to handle it. As much as I love Italy, in my opinion it is a harder country to travel in than England or France. I found Rome to be especially chaotic and would have felt overwhelmed if that is the first place I went to for my first trip. If you want to increase your time in Italy I think you could take a day away from London and/or Paris and still be able to see quite a bit in those places. With extra time in Italy you might consider saying in a smaller town in Tuscany for a couple of days to have a very different experience than you will have in the cities. Have a wonderful time. There is nothing like that first trip to make you want to come back for more!

Hi David. I too think your itinerary is fine for a first trip. And I think you will have more time in Italy that it looks like, because traveling from city to city doesn't eat up that much time. For instance I'd take an evening train from Florence to Rome, giving you a second full day in Florence. The train station isn't likely to be more than a 15-minute walk from your hotel, then a quick taxi ride from Termini to your hotel in Rome. Eat a picnic dinner on the train!

In order of your listed cities, I have stayed this many nights: -London 7: a lot of wasted time for me because I did have a whole week.....Didn't get off to see Stonehenge, the country side, or anything I had planned. And when I look back, I even missed the National Gallery. I am hitting my head on my desk right now because of it. For Pete's sake, I went to the Madame Troussauds Museum and did not go to the National Gallery. Yikes! -Paris 4: after being there 4 nights for the 1st time, I realized Paris as a first time city, should definitely have 5 nights. -Venice 3: Our favorite Italian city. We loved Venice, did not care too much for Rome. Wished we spent all 16 nights in Venice when it came down to it. But 3 nights allowed us to experience the soul of Venice. We spent very little time in St Mark's square. It was the perfect way to end our Italy trip. -Florence 3: found 3 nights perfect. We toured Florence at a comfortable pace. Anything less than 3 would be slightly blurry. -Rome 4: Was able to cram in everything I wanted to see and be done with sight seeing by 3 or 4; could chill out in evening. But it was the 1st time I ever experienced exhaustion.....I have never really known what it was until day 3 in Rome. I think 4 nights is the absolute minimum one should experience in Rome. There is just too much to see, especially if it is your first time there. I think I would have liked Rome better if I had it as my 1st city to tour; we just came in from Siena and Assisi and Rome smacked us up side the head. So if this were my trip, for the first time, I would do:
London 5, Paris 5, Venice 3, Florence 2, Rome 4 Or even eliminating Florence....To have 6 nights in Paris and 5 in Rome. I could never eliminate Venice, personally.

I also think the original plan is one of may possible good plans, though it is lopsidedly urban. I wouldn't abandon it too quickly Sure you could steal a day from London and give it to Rome, or skip Venice, but I think Venice is a wonderful introduction to Italy. One thing I might consider is a night train from Paris to Venice. Night trains are controversial on this list because it's hard to sleep on them. However, I find them romantic and adventurous, and this one would give you another day in Venice (if perhaps a tired one). I'd still spend 2 nights there with the night-train option.

I have to agree with those who think you are really only seeing cities...and that would not be my way of traveling either. I have been to all the locations numerous times plus many small villages and towns surrounding all those cities. I think a bit of a mix would allow you to see why so many people love Europe and it is not all for the big cities. If you leave London for that many nights I would definitely try to take at least a day trip to the Cotswolds, or I would cut a day there and add to Venice. If it were my trip I would work it so I had less time in each city and some days for the countryside, but that is my travel style. I am also more than happy to leave Rome after 2 full days and head to a village. I go into a sort of a daze after seeing too many tourist sites. But, if you love big cities, you've got lots of the best.

@ Paul - My comments about Italy were not directed at the transportation systems. I have been to all the places David has mentioned going. On my trip to Italy (4th trip to Europe), I landed in Rome. It was in early September and I found it to be hot (I live in a hot climate), noisy and chaotic. I enjoyed the sites, but was happy to leave for Tuscany. I don't know what time of year David will be there. I did not suggest skipping Italy. I love Italy. I merely suggested that starting in London could make for an easier transition to Europe.

David, I'm getting into the discussion late, but have a few comments. Reading your proposed Itinerary, my impression is that you're trying to get a sample of the 3 countries & hit the major sights. When will this be taking place??? As this is your first trip to Europe, I'd suggest reading Europe Through The Back Door, as it provides a lot of good information on "how" to travel in Europe. Your Itinerary looks good but I'd suggest a few changes to balance the time differently. For example... > Day 1 - Depart U.S. > Day 2 - Arrive London (you'll be jet lagged but may get some touring in) > Day 3 - London > Day 4 - London (day trip to Bath?) > Day 5 - London > Day 6 - EuroStar to Paris > Day 7 - Paris > Day 8 - Paris (day trip to Versailles?) > Day 9 - Paris > Day 10 - flight to Venice (morning). EasyJet ORY / VCE flights as low as €36.99 PP (plus fees). Be sure to consider luggage weight with Euro flights! > Day 11 - Venice > Day 12 - Venice > Day 13 - Train to Florence (morning ~2H:05M). Bus tour to Fiesole? > Day 14 - Florence (day trip to Siena? Travel by Bus) > Day 15 - Florence (Uffizi & Accademia?) > Day 16 - Train to Rome (mid-day? ~1H:30M) > Day 17 - Rome > Day 18 - Rome (day trip to Orvieto - be sure to see the the Duomo) > Day 19 - Rome (day trip to Ostia Antica?) > Day 20 - Rome > Day 21 - Return flight to U.S. from FCO While there's lots to see in London & Paris, I'd cut the time - assume you will return. I left Venice on the list as it's so unique. Use the country Guidebooks to plan sightseeing. Happy travels!

It will be our first family trip Europe this summer and we went through a lot of discussions on where we wanted to go. We ended up with a path very near yours as a first trip. think you have a great set up to see the cities. I might push a few days from London and Paris to Rome (4-4-1-1-4 for example) but that's just a suggestion. I'm ok with skipping the small areas on the first trip. YMMV.

This trip will be taking place at the end of May (May 20) towards the first part of June. While we are not ruling out the idea of flying within Europe we would rather ride the train and get a chance to see more of the scenery, even if it means less time for sightseeing in the cities. Generally we prefer to spend time staying in and seeing the big cities although we would like to take occasional day trips out to see other smaller places.

I don't think there's anything wrong with sticking to cities. Once again, this is a first trip. Add a couple of daytrips and you will have a pretty nice vacation.

I would not recommend going from Paris to Venice on daytime trains. It's around eleven hours-- many people find trips like that terribly boring and tiring. The scenery in eastern France is nothing special, just a lot of nondescript farmland. Most of northern Italy is not much better. It's also virtually guaranteed to be much more expensive than a budget airline flight. I personally like night trains for saving sightseeing hours, so I would either go that route or a flight. Good luck!

I think you have a really nice trip planned out, but would suggest minor changes. First, I agree with Will that the train from Paris to Venice is a very long ride (or Florence if you decide to skip Venice, although I think you'd miss a beautiful and unique city). However instead of a night train, I suggest you break up the ride with a stop in Switzerland, specifically Luzern. Leave Paris in the morning and you will be there 4.75 hours later, with most of the afternoon and all evening to spend in this charming lakeside city. The next day you would travel to Milan vis the Gotthard Pass route, with alpine scenery you would enjoy in the daytime. At Milan you change to the train for Venice. Total travel time from Luzern just over 6 hours. The other change I would suggest is that you cut London to 4 nights and Paris to 5 (or vice versa if you have more interest in London). Bear in mind that London can be very expensive so you want to use your time there wisely. You can see a lot in 2 days and still have one for a day trip. This change gives you 3 extra nights. Use one for the stop in Luzern and add the other two to Italy (Rome and ?).

You didn't mention budget concerns but I have a couple of suggestions that will save you $$$. First, try to be flexible within several days in booking your flight. Prices can vary significantly from one day to the next. Both Kayak.com and the British Airways website will allow you to compare prices over a range of dates; I am sure others do as well. Tickets on the Eurostar are much less expensive if bought way in advance. So as soon as you have your flight booked, and the number of nights you want to spend in London figured out, look for your Eurostar tickets. If you decide to do the overnight stop in Luzern I suggested above, you can get a good discount on tickets from there to Milan on the Swiss rail site, rail.ch. Last year the discount price was 25 CHF instead of 86, and hopefully they will offer the same in 2012. Discounts ( not as deep but still worthwhile) are also available on the TGV from Paris to Luzern and on the trains in Italy from Trenitalia.

it's not a bad itinerary but it is ambitious and as much as I love train travel in Europe I agree the link from Paris to Venice is a bit too long how about 5 nights London, 5 nights Paris, 5 nights Florence and 4 nights Rome?
Florence has so much to see and experience that 2 nights is absolutely not enough and 2 full days in Rome will barely scratch the surface

David, I suggested the flight from Paris to Venice as I was trying to include all the places you had originally listed, and also felt it was a more efficient use of your limited travel time. As the others have mentioned, travel by train on that route IS a long ride, however the suggestion from Lola to include a night or two in Lucerne to "break up the journey" would be a good idea to consider. That's a method I often use. Of course, you would have to adjust time in other locations to provide a day or two in Lucerne. It's a beautiful city! Depending on the age of your children, they may really enjoy the Museum of Transport. The famous "Lion of Lucerne" is also worth seeing (be sure to research the story behind it - Mark Twain called it "the most mournful and moving piece of stone in the world"). Good luck with your planning!

David, We did the same itinerary three years ago (sans London) and are covering all your cities this summer in the same order... we think alike! (To save time we flew from Paris to Venice it was quick and cheap.) I'm a restless soul and need a lot of variety. I personally try to alternate between these extremes: - city vs. country (mentioned by others) - beach vs. mountains - wet vs. dry - scheduled vs. unscheduled (or busy vs. down time)
- historic vs. modern - etc. E.g., city then country then city to break up the monotony. I agree with others that you should do day trips to get into the country for a change of pace. London (and other cities) are awesome, but when it comes down to it, frankly they're noisy and busy and sometimes dirty. Pete