Four European Cities to Visit in three weeks

This website can help you figure out travel times between cities. It shouldn't be used to book tickets or as a definitive guide, but it will give you an idea of what's possible. Except for Rome and Milan, I think you'll find that it takes more than four hours to get between any of the cities you mentioned, keeping in mind that flying means getting to and from airports, going through security, and other hassles. Trains may be the easiest way to do this trip within Europe.

Three weeks gives you about five days in each city, including any day trips you take. Since you'll be spending all or much of three days traveling between cities, and you won't be able to do much on your first day in Europe after the long flight(s) from Sydney, you're really looking at four full days per city.

Paris requires a minimum of five nights. A direct train from Paris to Milan takes 8h 30m so I suggest flying nonstop. I like this link that’s old so don’t pay attention to the cost: https://www.ricksteves.com/travel-tips/transportation/trains/cost-maps. Click on the + to the right of Train Cost and Time Estimates Across Europe. It shows direct train routes that gives ideas on what cities to visit.
Milan needs three nights if you include a day trip to Varenna and Bellagio on Lake Como. Other good day trips from Milan’s central station are Verona and Vicenza. If you add day trips add a night per trip. There are direct trains from Milan’s central station to Rome’s Termini station (4h 34m).
Rome needs four nights if you include a day to Vatican City. Good day trip options by direct train from Rome are: Florence (buy tickets for the Uffizi Gallery before leaving home), Orvieto and Naples. I also suggest flying nonstop from Rome to Vienna.
You can also take a train from Rome to Venice and spend three nights in Venice. From Venice take an overnight train (rent sleeper cars) and when you wake up you’ll be in Vienna.
You need at least four nights for Vienna. If you want to keep on traveling take a direct train to Budapest that takes about 3h.

Naples, Rome, Florence and Venice would minimize travel and maximize exploring. Probably wouldn't start in Naples due to sensory overload after a long flight, but it's only an hour from Rome so you can minimize backtracking.

To get a flavor of different countries, here are two possible groupings:

Budapest, Vienna, Prague, Berlin

London, Amsterdam, Bruges, Paris

Enjoy your family trip!

Others are doing a great job with the suggestions, but it's not a great choice of username Geoff. Wouldn't want anyone to think you were admin here.

With the 4 hour travel time limit there is no way to stitch together Paris or Vienna with any Italian city you mention.

Venice-Milan-Florence-Naples/Sorrento area-Rome can be linked with less than 4 hrs 'en-route' in moving from one city to the next.

A choice only you can make-- the 4 hr limit with a narrower range of locations or the more widespread trip and exceed the 4 hour travel time imit

Happy travels

Geoff,
Suggestions for what you can see in a day in, say Rome, will be limited by the stamina of the little ones. Someone will probably need to head back to your lodging for naps and/or down time. (Perhaps this duty can be rotated?) Rome alone will need four full days for the adults to enjoy themselves and see a decent number of sights, without rushing around to see it all. Your trip is doable, but perhaps you should forgo day trips from whatever cities you choose. The cities alone will fill your days. (Maybe with the exception of Milan.) With that, you will still need to prioritize which sights to see. And, of course, groups could split up to visit the sights. You don't have to always do everything together.

joe32f is correct about travel time between cities. Paris is an outlier in your scenario and requires much more than four hours to go to the other cities. I realize you have a really long haul to get to Europe and want to make the most of it. Just do a little more research regarding where you want to go. If Paris is important, go there, but maybe add just two other cities to avoid burnout. I have traveled with kids (way in the past...my two are now in their forties), and more recently with my grandkids. The grandkids were 9 and 12 in France and we stayed in a house in the Dordogne region, pacing ourselves so we weren't totally pooped each night.

In the vein of children, how do you plan to move the littlest one around? Will you buy or rent a stroller there? A backpack will get old really fast, for both the adult and the baby. And if you rent a car even for a day, be sure to get your hands on car seats. Rules are enforced pretty strictly in Europe. The four-year old will need a booster seat.

This sounds like a wonderful trip. If doing everything together, remember that your pace will be determined by your slowest mover. I have traveled with adult relatives and sometimes one of them held us up, and sometimes I was holding the others up. If you don't overplan what you will do, and leave some open time, you will probably enjoy a serendipitous event or activity!

Bon voyage et amusez-vous bien!

Geoff,
GerryM is correct. You might want to change your user name from "admin".

I would consider cutting it down to 3 cities.
Prague-Vienna-Budapest is a very popular route as is Paris-London-Amsterdam.
Having been to all those cities mutiple times, I would choose Paris-London-Amsterdam.

Milan is nice, but in my opinion not as impressive as Florence and Venice. Consider five days in Rome and three in Florence.
Vienna is great, but a bit out of the way if you plan to visit Paris.

What about flying into Rome, then train to Florence, then fly to Paris and end your visit in another city. Consider London or Amsterdam.

Prague-Vienna-Budapest-Paris-London-Amsterdam. All excellent ideas.

Prague: the tourist zones are crowded but pretty amazing. A solid 3 full days.

Vienna: a bit plastic for my taste, but beautiful and the museums go on for ever. A very high end culture society. Nice.

Budapest: well I'm biased cause it's my home. But easy to be biased with the most interesting and most beautiful capital city in Europe.

There is a reason do many tour companies do the Imperisl Tour (Prague, Vienna, Budapest)

Paris: my second favorite capital city. Very beautiful and always something to see and do. So much culture.

London: maybe the bottom of my list of those named. Possibly because I tire of their bad English, or maybe it's the cost. But I still think it's a must see for everyone. Plenty to see and do.

Amsterdam: admittedly I've only changed planes in Amsterdam. The current push back on tourism concerns me a little. But I think it would be a great contrast to some of the others.

Generally a 5 hour train ride takes about the same time, door to door as a flight between the sane two cities, door to door. So consider packing light and using a discount airline if you want to broaden your choices.

For instance Dubrovnik to Vienna to Budapest is no more travel time than Budapest to Vienna to Prague and will only cost a bit $125 per person more in transportation costs.

Consider flying into Paris, then flying to Venice, take a train to Rome, and fly home from there. Or the other way around depending on flight availability. That will give you a week in each of three great cities. You'll have enough time to really get a feel for each city, and will also allow time for a day trip or two from each. With eight adults you will have time for folks to do their own thing as well as do things together.

I would like to vists four cities and spend four to five days in each
city.

Big fan of this approach to travel. The only downside is that some cities may not have 4-5 days worth of sites you want to see. Budapest is one example for me. I enjoyed my visit, but had coverd all I want to see in less than three full days. I think London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and Vienna all will have plenty to keep you busy and possibly wanting more. Milan, Amsterdam and Brussels will require day trips out of the city (higly recommended) to fill 4-5 days.

Finally, with a group this size, I suggest you use train time to discuss what worked in the last city and make plans for the next one. Enjoy!

I figured someone would have published how many days to stay per city. I read it, no issues from my end except I would think of it as full days, where you wake and go to bed in that city. So if you count nights, add one to the number. https://tommyooi.com/how-many-days-in-europe-cities/

But still one writers opinion, or possibly one editorial staffs opinion.

I can't begin to tell you which cities will captivate the collective attention of 8 adults and 2 children, so I would search out the median opinion on how long to stay. That way, maybe a third love you, a third think you did a miserable job planning and a third disappeared after the first bar.

The idea that a particular city or country "requires" some set period of time is one I can't agree with.

One day in Paris: one can visit enough arrondissements and attractions to get an idea of where one wants to investigate further when one returns. The same is true for one day in Vienna, or Prague, or Rome. Travel is a journey, not a destination to which one can never return.

not exactly what you asked for, but still might be useful -
"11 Trips in Europe Everyone Should Add to Their Bucket List"
https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/11-trips-in-europe-everyone-should-add-to-their-bucket-list

That's an interesting collection of 11 things to do. The idea that "everyone" should want to do them is, of course, ridiculous. I want to do pretty much none of them.

The problem with suggesting itineraries for others is that we do not know well what they like and like less, what they are willing to spend, and most important what places they have been dreaming for decades of visiting. For instance, of the four cities actually listed in the OP, I have never visited Milan and have never considered it a first- or even second-tier tourist destination; liked Salzburg much more than Vienna; and do not care for Rome (though I probably need to give it a second chance).

And the other issue here is logistics--a small army with two small children will need to be transported from city to city. And the four cities listed are so far apart from one another that air travel will be need in each instance except Rome to Milan.

Were I asked to design a generic three-week trip for a family of eight for mid-March, I would try to keep it simple and would include for me my two favorite cities on the planet--London and Paris. An itinerary that Dawn suggested--London-Paris-Bruges-Amsterdam--makes sense. And this itinerary includes three major airports that are easy to fly into and out of, and that offer more direct flights than the other cities.

And actually, given the size of the party and two young children, I might be inclined to choose just London or Paris, or perhaps add Bruges with a flight into or out of Brussels. Surely, Amsterdam can be used as a base to visit other Dutch cities, but I am wondering with two small children, how many side trips you will be making. I would think you would want to minimize trips to the airport and the train station as much as possible. I personally find Amsterdam delightful in that it would be a great place to live, but for me it lacks the must-see sights that other top cities in Europe have.

Geoff,
We haven't heard back from you. Any thoughts on the forum responses? Have they been helpful in your planning ideas?

The travelling party will consist of eight adults.....

Probably haven't heard from OP as getting a consensus of the group is ....ummm, challenging?

Suspect there are ongoing discussions about what are the 'must do' locations. When they sort that out, then OP may re-appear.

Hi, Thank you all for your various insights and helpful comments. Four of my party have been to Europe before, one extensively, while for the other four it will be there first time. I see this as the last time we will be able to travel as an extended family as additional grandchildren will start coming onto the scene. I would like for us to have a broad flavour of Europe. The biggest issue is the two grandchildren and trying to curate the cities and travel around their needs. I'm warming to the suggestion of London Amsterdam (or some other close city to both London and Paris). I'm thinking with longer stays it allows for times when we can chose to "do nothing" yet still have time to experience those cities and explore surrounding towns . Geoff

Geoff,
You are wise to consider how much having little ones along can affect travel. And one other point to mention...travel time between places may not be only the length of the flight or the train journey, which is what the websites give you. Add to that checking out of your lodgings, getting to the airport or station, and on arrival getting to your new lodging and settling in. Anywhere from one to four extra hours could be involved with 10 persons to move together. If using a taxi, for instance, to get to a train station, you may need 2 or 3, or a large van with room for all the luggage too, and you will have to preorder ones with the appropriate car seats for the children. The more you are prepared for these details, the easier and more pleasant your travel will be. With air travel, of course, there is the time involved with security checks at the airports. Factor that time in as well. Train travel is simpler in this instance.

And in reference to my comment about a backpack for the littlest one, just a few days ago a family lost a little one to the heat in one of our southwest parks, on a hike. The baby was in a backpack, and the parent didn't realize how much more the heat affected a small person. Another toddler died from the heat even though the family were in a boat on a lake here in California. When in Rome, or any warm city or town, allow for the fact that smaller bodies have a harder time regulating heat and expelling body heat.
I don't mean to scare you off, just want you to be prepared for the trip. Having the little ones along will draw attention and smiles from the locals and other travelers, and seeing things with the eyes of your 4 year old will be a revelation!
Amusez-vous bien!

I’m a fan of that pace of travel. I would consider what the group plans to DO in each place, considering the kids in the group. Is your group willing to split up if the kids are “museumed-out” or not ready for a two hour dinner that starts at 8pm?

I would also consider weather at that time of year. It could be pretty cold and rainy in Paris and Vienna. We even had cold, rainy weather in Rome over Easter.

at that time of year. It could be pretty cold and rainy in Paris and
Vienna.

Naaaa, not really

Vienna (and Budapest is almost identical):

Rainfall. the rainiest months of the year are July and June during which monthly rainfall average reaches 74 mm. On the other side, driest months are March, October and January when the average rainfall is reduced to 38 mm per month.

Temperatures: after sunrise I would count on no colder than 40F and no warmer than 65F. Sweater weather plus maybe a light coat at times. Budapest is actually a little warmer. https://weatherspark.com/m/81358/3/Average-Weather-in-March-in-Vienna-Austria#Figures-Temperature

HI All, Again thanks for your insights and sharing your travel experiences. I'm waiting for family members to get back on the three cities itinerary (London-Amsterdam-Paris). My thinking is to travel by train to the cities and try to get accommodation close (500 m?) to train stations and within or close to the city centre. This would make exploring the cities and shopping easier and allow the kids to go back to the accommodation to rest if needed. Cheers Geoff

Go for what is convenient. You have enough on the plate with 8 adults and the 2 very young ones. The young should be of no concern excepting convenience. They will know nothing of the difference between cities. They will know nothing of even a vacation but for the fact that their routines are broken for them and they have to eat different foods, at irregular times.
As far as traveling together your train travel is by far the best way. Even then, allow hours before and after the maximum of 4 hours of actual train ride. Nearer a whole day. There are a lot of small logistics in getting together a group. When are people are ready to go. And in the cities what and where to eat, and once more, what about the little ones.
I realize this is a dream last fling for togetherness in a big way, but don’t have great expectations and you won’t be disappointed. That’s you. For the others I hope they realize that also.
The consensus here is that 2-4 weeks of travel is enough for many people. You are allowing three weeks and you so are approaching the limit of time to go home. But you have eight adults and two children who will all reach that point a different times.
You don’t say what you want to do in these cities. The usual being museums, art galleries, palaces, and walking around neighborhoods.
This warrants a family meeting to hash out some approach to avoid a vacation that does not rise to the occasion.

Well put, treemoss!

I'm waiting for family members to get back on the three cities
itinerary (London-Amsterdam-Paris).

Almost impossible to go wrong with London and Paris. Well done.

My thinking is to travel by train to the cities and try to get
accommodation close (500 m?) to train stations and within or close to
the city centre.

Forget about where the train station is. That is a place you will visit once in two cities and twice in one city. Concentrate on the best location for tourism by foot and public transportation. You will be doing that every day.

With kids an overnight train may be appropriate as they can sleep during travel time. You could potentially do Paris-Amsterdam-Vienna-Rome. There are night trains for the Amsterdam-Vienna leg and the Vienna-Rome leg.

I'm warming to the suggestion of London Amsterdam (or some other close city to both London and Paris). I'm thinking with longer stays it allows for times when we can chose to "do nothing" yet still have time to experience those cities and explore surrounding towns.

It's great you've done some thinking about the logistics and are checking in with others in your group. Agree with Mr E, pick hotels where you want to hang out and enjoy the city and near the Tube in London. And the more you do ahead of time in planning the better this trip will go. For example, how to manage your transfers / times in cities / fun things for the various sub groups / food and meals, the list goes on!

If it were MY trip with a large family, I would pick 2 cities like London & Paris, do a 'multi trip' so you fly into London and out of Paris, for example, so you don't have to back track to the starting point and add another travel day. Two destinations eases the the hassle of moving everyone from one hotel or apartment to another, and then you can consider how to do some day trips - small tour operators could easily accommodate 8 people as a group to say, go to Chartres near Paris, or go to Oxford, a lovely smallish town, from London. But the list of places to get to from those 2 cities is quite long! I would look at AirBnB's / apartments so the family has a place to hang out and can prepare snacks and meals rather than having to go out for meals. If you really want a third city, Amsterdam is an easy one to add with good train connections. And it's such an easy, small central city to wander.

Believe it or not, March usually isn't that rainy in London, though of course weather can happen at that time of year across Europe, so look at averages and highs and lows for then as well. Even if this seems like the last trip for this particular group, you will likely have a better trip with fewer destinations and some quiet time in the middle usually to do laundry and recover. Good luck and let us know how this develops, it sounds like it will be a great trip!

Hi, Again thank for all of your wonderful insights. We had a family meeting over the week end and the three city itinerary was well received by all. The couple with the two young children mention that they would like one of the cities to be one where there were kid friendly activities and possibly close to a beach (though I think that it could be quite chilly at that time of the year). Amsterdam seemed to be a possibility. Right out of left field, I've seen some good reviews on Cadiz in Spain as a relatively quiet, not overly commercialised destination, which might fit the bill. This would involve travel by plane. If we went with that option I was thinking London-Paris-Cadiz and return home from Cadiz. Cheers

I would stick with the London-Paris-Amsterdam plan and forget about the beach. Nowhere in Europe is warm enough to swim in March, and for Australians to prioritize a beach there, well it’s like someone from Europe going to Australia for its beautiful churches. With children that young what’s needed is parks and playgrounds and any city has those. Maybe something like a puppet show. In London there’s plenty of that sort of thing and it’s in English. A boat ride on the river in London or Paris. A canal boat ride in Amsterdam. A sweet crepe from a street stand in Paris. That’s the memory a four year old might retain (the other one is too young to remember anything).

London, Paris, Berlin, Budapest...Eurostar between London and Paris, fly between the others on a discount airline like EasyJet...

Amsterdam certainly does beaches, even if it's not the first thing you might think of the city for. Yes they will be chilly, but any time of the year I sail into Ijmuiden some of the hardy Dutch are down there, and I have almost never sailed in there at breakfast time without seeing the beach being groomed, even in mid winter.

I'm thinking of the glorious beach incongrously situated behind Ijmuiden Steelworks. You drive there or use Beverwijk Station then taxi. The beach continues for several miles north and probably has easier access points.

Much easier to reach is the beach at Zaandvort am Zee, a short train ride from Amsterdam.
There are also the Dutch Friesian Islands- several have rail/ferry connections, at least two of the Islands are day trippable. The others are more stopover kind of places.

Well if you are an Aussie, then, I'd avoid the UK and Ireland as they are just different versions of the same thing - the Ango Sphere!

Vienna would definitely be on my list as it gives you a sense of empire and what Europe might have been like back in the days where Europe was ruled that way.

Rome would also be on the list as again you will get a sense of Roman history and the catholic church.

The alps should definitely be on the list, but I'd avoid Switzerland (where I actually life!) as it is very expensive, so may be Salzburg or Innsbruck.

And to get a bit of the French culture with going too far from the others, perhaps Colmar in France.

In March, I'd want to go south (weather and length of daytime). Even northern Spain was freezing the last week of March this year (it improved as we moved into April and further south). Consider Malta, Sicily, and Italy (Rome south). Sicily is a nice destination by itself with a few cities as bases to see the island. Rome, IMO, doesn't make a good base because traffic and parking are difficult. Lodging is expensive, if you're not planning on being there during the day.