Multi Country vs Single Country itinerary....Which is better??

Hmmmm, well looking at your itinerary and since you are pretty far out from travel, I'd suggest you take a look at Rick's Classic 21 Day best of Europe. It may not work for you but it's a very efficient way to cover a bunch of locations for a first trip to Europe. You don't have to deal with transportation intra-city and using time finding your hotel, etc. Plus the added bonus of a guide is awesome. To me there is not a clear cut advantage of staying in one country vs seeing different countries although 3 days in each city is a little short in my opinion for London and Paris.

It doesn't get you Munich and Berchtesgaden but does get you 3 nights in Germany and 2 in Austria right over the line.

https://www.ricksteves.com/tours/europe/europe-21-days

I'd add time in London before the tour on your own with an easy Eurostar train between London and Amsterdam, then a local train out to the starting point in Haarlem. I'd add several days on the end in Paris to go out and spend 2 nights in Normandy before you come back to Paris.

You CAN do this on your own, it's just harder with the distances you are covering and adjustment to each culture.

What an awesome anniversary trip! I WILL caution you...you mention this might be your only trip but trust all of us on this...once you go you'll be hooked and want to return, lol!!

There is not one right answer, but I certainly have a preference for longer stays in a smaller geographic area, less hopping around and dealing with transport. It really just depends on what you want out of the trip. Really think about your personalities and energy levels, etc. My husband and I did a trip like you describe in our 20s and had a blast, but now at 50, we'd kill each other. But, when we are able to get away for weeks at a time and just enjoy a place at ease, we are never happier.
Some things are easier than others, too, like London to Paris is a snap on the train. But once you start inserting really long train rides and flights into a plan, it starts to lose the luster--again, this is just my personality, so talk over with your spouse how you both would most like to spend the time. Congrats!

I would do 10 London also going to one other city in England such as York, 5 in Paris, 14 in Italy. I assume you know to fly into London and out of Rome? Fly from Paris to Venice.

I can understand the desire to "see it all" on what may be your only trip to Europe. Taking a tour such as Rick's Best of Europe would certainly give you a sampling of each place,and having a guide can give you a feeling of security that you wouldn't necessarily feel if you were on your own, and most of the logistics would be taken care of. Even then, it would be good to add extra days at the beginning and end of your tour.

You could certainly do this yourself if you are both healthy and in good physical condition. But it is still fast paced, with the only down time being spent sitting on trains or planes. To cut down on transit times, you might consider putting France between Amsterdam and Munich. And I'm not sure Berchtesgaden is desirable as a day trip. It would be almost 3 hrs each way from Munich. Salzburg, OTOH takes half that amount of time. Just something to consider.

London, Paris, and Rome each deserve at least 4 days. Personally, I think you could skip Germany and give those days to other cities. And yes, do a multicity flight ticket into London and home from your final city.

As said above, it really depends on what you want. You seem to be aware that travel between cities and countries can be confusing and stressful. We have done it but it was not always smooth - trains have been late, train stations confusing, etc. Changing trains can be especially confusing - often with only 10-15 minutes to drag your luggage up and over to another platform.

We have also had wonderful trips where we mostly stayed in one place. 10 days in London, 7 days in the Cotswolds and also a week in Rome. Plenty to see and immersion it the local culture is a big plus. (we stayed in VRBO apartments, cooked our own breakfast, and some other meals, shopped locally).

Rick Steves tours are a good option to see a lot without the stress of managing your own transportation and accommodations. We have always stayed extra time, often on both ends. Since you apparently have up to a month you might consider two RS tours with a few days on your own between them. We have done that and it worked for us.

Happy researching!

Speaking as a veteran international traveler, I believe this overall plan is excellent. I have done single country and multi-country trips in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Overall, I think multi-country excursions are generally better. This is especially true for you, given the "bucket list" orientation of your journey.

It is wise to get out of the big cities once in the awhile, as you are planning. However, it's never easy to make a decision regarding a day trip, because sometimes it's easy to fall in love with a beautiful European city. Having said that, some other options include a day trip to Oxford as part of your visit to London and Haarlem as part of your visit to Amsterdam.

You mark Normandy as a day trip from Paris. I was surprised that Normandy is about three hours by train from Paris; I went there to see the D-Day beaches and stayed in Bayeux. Another idea is to go to Chartres.

I believe three days in each of the cities you underline is an excellent plan.

Is there any way this can not be in the summer? Europe has been experiencing very hot summers, in addition to the crowds being much worse.
Have a great trip!

You asked about your time allotment of 3 full days in each of your cities. Although you could definitely spend more time than that in each place, I think it's reasonable for a lot of your targets (not all).

Munich should be OK, even with a day trip; Munich isn't blessed with a lot of sights most people consider must-sees.

Three full days is OK for Venice (not a large place).

It's probably OK for Amsterdam and Florence if you aren't art nuts who have to go to all the museums.

Three days is quite short for Rome unless you're certain you have limited interest in the historical sights from the Roman period and don't want to see many churches or art museums. In other words, three days to wander around some of Rome's neighborhoods and gaze at monuments from outside wouldn't necessarily be too hectic. But the city's on your want-to-visit list, so I bet you have an interest in Roman ruins, churches and/or art.

Three days probably won't cut it in Paris or London unless you're most unusual travelers.

The above are just my comments, which are no more valid than anyone else's. If you haven't done so, I'd suggest reviewing Rick's sightseeing highlights for the cities on your itinerary to see how many seem to fall in the "gotta do it" category for you. Rick doesn't list every sight in a city, but he has pretty good instincts about what appeals to most American tourists.

Rick's top sightseeing priorities can be found right on this website:

Choose Explore Europe (in the left panel if you're using a PC)
Select the appropriate country.
Select the city you're visiting.
Click on At a Glance.

One of our other posters has suggested expecting to hit two major sights per day. I've found that a good rule of thumb and a decent guide for guesstimating how many days I need in a city. It usually allows some slack for wandering around the historic part of town (which is very important to me), seeing something I learn about after arrival in town or relaxing if I've been pushing too hard. Folks who are serious foodies would also appreciate having time for leisurely meals.

Trips such as you've sketched out can work, as can deep dives into one or two countries. I think it's very desirable to have different types of destinations when you have a trip of 2 weeks or longer, but variety can be built in in several different ways; it doesn't have to mean a large number of countries, or even more than one. You can include smaller cities as well as large ones, spend some time in rural areas, see mountains/lakes/coastline, go to culturally-different regions of the same country (as you're doing with Rome-Florence-Venice), indulge in activities you enjoy that go beyond regular sightseeing (athletic activities, cooking classes, etc.) and so on.

I'd suggest you consider whether so much time spent in cities that are all very touristy and mostly very large will be somewhat tiring on a trip of this length. Smaller places are often more relaxing to visit because you don't usually have the pressure of a long list of sights you plan to see. Typically, smaller cities are also much less likely to be infested with a bunch of Starbucks, Pizza Huts, McDonalds, KFCs and so on.

Hi there, Congrats sounds like a very fun trip! Lots of great advice here, and as others have said, it's really your trip so maybe 5 countries in 30 days suits you, but we would hate it, ha. I liked that you allowed 2 full travel days between the U.S and Europe, but you only need one getting home, usually. And a dedicated travel day between cities is smart. Just how active are you both? Our average walking days in Paris & Rome recently were minimum of 15,000 steps (10K), some days on rough cobblestones or in ancient sites we walked 20,000K. Will you pack light? Agreed with other poster, spring or autumn would be so much more pleasant than summer, heat & crowds will sap your energy.

1. Are you taking public transportation or taxis to & from train stations & far apart sight seeing spots? It's going to make a big difference in some instances, but not others.
2. Will you stay in central hotels / B&B's that are easy to get to all the sites? How will you do the laundry & have you added a rest day along the way?
3. Others have suggested tours, a very good idea unless you want to love planning ahead, which I do but many don't. Are you going to sit down and plot out each arrival / transfer to hotel / how to book & get train tickets, blah blah? IMO, EACH new city takes 1/2 a day to adjust, unless you pack super light, dump your stuff & head out immediately. Which I've done when arriving well-rested on a business trip overnight but I was 40, not 60. Where will you eat? We try to take a walking food tour the first 1/2 day in each new city, gets us orientated & gives us a list of where to have meals.
4. When in Rome, what do you want to see? If it's the Sistine Chapel, St Peters, Roman Forum & Colosseum, you & your feet will be dead after 3 days, and you may not have the energy to do a passegiata, evening stroll after a leisurely dinner with the locals through the historical center... Which would be a real shame for us.
5. Not sure why you'd never go to Europe again. If you think you MIGHT, you could skip London, the UK deserves a week on it's own & fly into Paris & out of Rome. (Lake Como is close to Venice, so you'd want to visit before or after Venice & take the train to Rome, that's easy.)

Here's the order in which I would make the trip you've planned -

(Fly into UK & out of Rome)
U.K. - London

Train to Amsterdam

Train to France - Paris (day trip to Normandy)

Fly to Germany (You could do this by train) - Munich (day trip to Berchtesgaden)

Fly to Venice Italy - Venice, train to Bellagio (Lake Como)

Train to Rome, fly home.
Hope you have fun planning this trip!

30 days is a lot, but you plan to cover four major countries and one smaller country.

Also, three days in London, Paris or Rome is not enough.

We did a month in the UK, just doing England and S. Wales and didn't even go into London. I suggest narrowing your plans to one or two countries.

For Italy, be sure to do the big three of Venice, Florence and Rome.

Major world class cities such as London or Paris merit at least 3-4 full days (4-5 nights) - especially if there is a day trip involved. Cities like Munich and Venice at least 2-3. As a suggestion, you may wish to include nights in smaller places like Berchtesgaden and Bellagio rather than as day trips as they can offer a more localized experience that large tourist cities. When we visit smaller places we try to stay 2 nights unless we're passing through to get from one destination to another - then 1 night. Also, if you're spending 5-6 nights or more in a major city you may want to consider moving hotels. We're spending 4 nights in the historic part of Istanbul, Turkey in early November and then moving to the more modern area for 2 more so as to experience a different part of the city - and get what can feel like a fresh start to the vacation. Hope this helps.

In 31 days you could certainly do the five countries. It all comes down to planning the order and the means of transportation; and the transportation can be part of the memories of the journey.

If you haven't traveled much in Europe and if this will be a first time for these places, then its probably a good idea. It would be a shame if you only went to one place and it didn't speak well to you. I might say to slow down in Italy so you can stop and smell the flowers. Maybe just Rome, Florence and Venice.

I prefer to stick to one country or region because it means less time moving around and more time sightseeing. It’s a better use of your time. I also like to see places more in depth. However, a multi country plan can work especially if it really is your only trip to Europe. The right answer is whatever appeals to you. And don’t forget to consider how much energy you have. Zipping around from place to place takes more energy and is stressful for some people.

So the next question is: Is three days enough for the cities you’ve chosen? It is enough to give you a taste and to see six major sites and perhaps a few smaller ones. To really get to know London, Paris and Rome you will need more time. Only you can decide what is best for you by reading up on what each city has to offer and determining YOUR must sees.

Do you have to go in summer? If so, what is your tolerance for heat? Italy is likely to be extremely hot, so if you wilt in heat, you should take it off your list. Paris can get hot too. In London you have a better chance of avoiding extreme heat. Perhaps substitute the Berner Oberland area of Switzerland for Italy, especially if you like hiking and gorgeous mountain scenery.

You have lots of time to read and watch videos (Rick’s are great), which will be very helpful. I hope you have a wonderful trip that’s right for you.

Our first few trips to Europe were multi country trips. I really enjoyed the contrast between very different kinds of places. Now I tend to focus on one country but still strive to build in variety.

A few thoughts. Think about building variety into the trip in terms of some smaller places. Constant big cities will get exhausting.

You can see a lot in 3 days even in big cities like London, Paris, and Rome. The problem is it is difficult to keep that pace up for as long as you propose. I would add some days to places midway through the trip, even if it means going to fewer places.

I have friends who did a whirlwind 14 day trip to Italy. And when they got to Pompeii , they all were too tired to go in. They ended up at a coffee shop instead!!

I personally have found I can keep up the kind of pace you propose for about two weeks (my friends had an even faster pace so didn’t even make it two weeks). Then I need some slower days.

Sounds lovely! I will offer a suggestion that others have noted. Big cities like Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome can be exhausting, especially if you're trying to see a lot in a short time. It can get to the point that you're not enjoying your trip as much as you should. If you deleted London and went straight to Amsterdam to begin your trip, there would be a few extra days to take a mini break in a less hectic place.

If I were in your shoes, I would consider spending those extra days in Normandy, perhaps Bayeux. There's so much to see in that area and it has a much more relaxed atmosphere. There are many guided tours available from Bayeux to the WW2 sites and things like cheese or cider tours. Normandy really deserves more than a day trip.

Also, in Amsterdam, do consider a hotel in Haarlem or another nearby smaller city with fast train connections into Amsterdam for your daily sightseeing. I know there's a bus to Haarlem (maybe bus #300?) directly from the airport. It's much more relaxing in the evening. And the Saturday Market in Haarlem is wonderful! I know that others may feel differently, but we have felt somewhat uneasy in Amsterdam at night as an older couple. It was much better to have our evenings in a quieter setting.

Whatever you decide, have a wonderful trip!

You’re not trying to fit 31 cities into 7 days, so you’ve got a decent plan for your bucket list destinations. While on recent trips we’ve generally been staying longer and in fewer places, we’ve been fortunate enough to have made several trips to Europe. For a first-time trip with a number of places, you’re keeping things within a manageable scope.

Parts of your travel days will include at least some time in your new arrival city, so you’re getting a bit more than 3 days in some of those locations, too.

If you decide on a big Italy trip, be sure to include the big island of Sicily. Get there from the mainland by air and/or ferry.

Hi, my first experience in Europe was a 4-H trip through the People-to-People program where we saw several countries in 40 days. But all of my trips since that time have been mostly single countries - just a few with adjacent countries. That’s mainly to optimize our time actually enjoying while minimizing our transportation hours.

If this is truly a one-time trip and reading your requests and priorities, these are my thoughts:

• Fly to London. 4 nights in London with a day trip to Oxford & Blenheim Palace.

• Take the Eurostar train to Paris. 5 nights in Paris with a guided
  day trip to Normandy, and a day trip to Chartres or Rouen.

• Fly to Milan and take the train to Lake Como. 3 nights in Lake Como.

• Take the trains to Venice. 4 nights in Venice. One of those days for a guided car/tour up to Cortina in the stunning Dolomite mountains.

• 15 days left to select which locations in Italy would be your favorites. I highly recommend going to both the Venice, Florence, Rome main locations and also some of the smaller cities or villages.

I’ll add this trip report because it was my daughter’s first time to Italy - might give you some ideas.
https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/mother-adult-daughter-italy-trip-aug-sept-2022

I gave you a mountain experience in Italy instead of Germany. You could fly from Rome to Amsterdam on the way home and do a quick 2-night there before flying home. It depends on your priorities after planning the rest of your detailed itinerary. I stayed in Leiden last time I was in The Netherlands since it was much cheaper, and I loved being there - still handy to Amsterdam and the airport.

This is a doable itinerary with ample time (don't let the slow pokes here get you down).

That said, it is heavy on big cities. Some time in quieter "back door" places would be my bit of advice. IMHO your multi-country approach is the ideal way to explore Europe, the differences between neighboring countries was perhaps the most memorable thing from my early trips.

Best of luck!

I tend to focus on one country but add in a short side trip to a neighboring country while I'm there.

I'm not the expert traveler like others here, but what I keep going back to on your post is your statement, "this may be our only opportunity to visit Europe"...I'd say if that is true, then go for the multiple countries. Especially if you would have a full 3 days in each, and you didn't mean 3 nights which is just 2 days each. If the latter, maybe consider dropping one place.

This sounds Ike a wonderful trip and I hope you have fun planning!

I'm not the expert traveler like others here, but what I keep going
back to on your post is your statement, "this may be our only
opportunity to visit Europe"...I'd say if that is true, then go for
the multiple countries. Especially if you would have a full 3 days in
each, and you didn't mean 3 nights which is just 2 days each. If the
latter, maybe consider dropping one place.

This sounds Ike a wonderful trip and I hope you have fun planning!

DITTO!

This could work. Investigate flying into London and back from Paris. You should write a detailed-day-by-day itinerary listing one or more major activities per day, along with transportation (train rides or plane flights or unlikely but maybe possible, long distance bus rides). That will help you figure out how many nights you need per city.

I went to parts of the Netherlands and Northern Belgium, in July 2019. That was my only experience seeing two countries in one trip. Every other time I traveled, I only went to one country per trip. Each trip was not more than 14 nights. My other trips include to England, Greece, Italy, Spain, Quebec, Mexico, Florida, California. I spent 8 nights in London but I wish I had gone outside London, maybe to Bath and/or Stonehenge. I only went to London. I spent 5 nights in Amsterdam, 4 nights in Rome. You might need more or less nights in those cities.

Edit: my personal preference is to travel to just one country or state per trip, or possibly two adjacent countries or states if one or both countries or states are rather small.

We used to travel as fast and far as possible in 2 weeks and 3 weekends. But $9 per U.S. gallon gasoline in Italy made us realize that slower travel is better travel. We moved so fast we were missing so much in the cities we visited. And every great European city is worthy of 4 day visits.

We will take trains between major cities if they're no longer than 4 hours. Otherwise, we're flying on budget European airlines for ridiculously low fares.

The first and last day of any trip is essentially wasted. And every time you travel to another city, that day is also wasted. It takes a couple of days in any city to get your feet on the ground, to learn how to get around and what tourist sights to see.

I'm a believer in traveling to cities that are in close proximity to other cities--more or less in a straight line. There's simply no way with time constraints to see it all. And first time travelers should stick to major cities of importance.

For a 31 day trip, flying into London and spending a week in the U.K. would work. Then take the Eurostar down to Paris for 5 days. Then fly or take the train up to Amsterdam for 4 days minimum. From there, I'd fly down to Italy which seems to be everyone's favorite destination. You could spend 2 weeks visiting just Venice, Florence (Tuscany) and Rome.

Then fly home from Rome. Unfortunately, a month doesn't leave enough time to visit Deutschland along with the other fine cities on your itinerary. Germany, Czech Republic and Austria is a trip to its own. We've been very fortunate to have been traveling Europe most every year since the 1970's.

I don't think you have too many stops, but it is extremely city heavy with only Bellagio being a smaller location. I've been to all the places on your list, and I'd personally skip Amsterdam, and potentially Munich. I'd add a smaller city to either England or France in exchange. I generally travel by adding 1 big city and 1 smaller city for each country we go to as a minimum. Our last trip we just did London and Paris, and I really missed the smaller cities I usually add and would not do a big city only trip again.

I think London, Paris, and Rome all can easily fill more than 3 days. 3 days is good for Munich, Venice, and Amsterdam though.