Summer Europe Trip

It's good to read that you've traveled together before, because that eliminates one concern about trips like this (i.e., will you be able to get everyone going in the morning). However, the pace concerns me greatly. Were your earlier trips as long as this one, or were they just 1 or 2 weeks? There is quite a difference between changing hotels every 2 nights for 7, 10 or 14 days vs. doing it for 4 weeks.

It's impractical to pack enough clothes for a trip that long, so you need to allow time for laundry.

Out of your party of 9 there will surely be quite a number who are laid low by jetlag, so that first day shouldn't be expected to include a lot of sightseeing, just some wandering around. So with your proposed schedule you'll have either no usable days in Venice or just one. What a shame.

Changing hotels will eat up at least half a day every time you do it--more if flights or ferries are involved. And that doesn't include the time you'll need simply to get oriented to your new environment. So all those 2-night stops really give you, at most, 1.5 days to see what you've traveled so far to see.

Most people with 4 weeks available would want to see a bit of Tuscany either as day-trips from Florence or perhaps by staying out in the coutryside for a few days with rental cars for transportation. That doesn't mean you have to do either of those things, but staying in the area longer would actually allow you to see more, because you wouldn't be spending so much time dealing with hotels and trains.

Two nights in Rome would be much too short for me. There's a lot to see there. Perhaps you're planning to skip the Vatican? That would save a lot of time.

The Amalfi Coast is lovely, but getting there from Rome will take more time than you expect just from looking at a map. And then you'll want to move around and see some different towns. Two nights would be very frustrating to me.

You've chosen the two most touristy Greek islands, but they are popular for a reason. You might want to add a less-developed island that would give you a better sense of Greece.

Greece is a challenge from the logistical standpoint. It's quite risky to plan a series of 2-night stops there because bad weather occasionally grounds flights and keeps ferries in port. A blitz trip would fall apart if you ran into a significant transportation issue.

Over all, what you are proposing to do is going to mean a frustrating amount of travel time and far too little sightseeing time. If you pick up comprehensive guide books to Italy and Greece, you'll find that there are many wonderful places to visit near the spots you've already targeted. Including some of them will make for a better-paced trip and will save money.

""We have already been to London, Paris, Barcelona and Madrid""

Were those also all just 2 nights? If that is your normal travel mode then you could do all the cities on your list.

On the other hand........

With 4 weeks to spend, I would devote a few more days in Italy. If Venice is your 1st stop ( arrival city from US?) spend 3 nights / add one more to Florence, /add 2 more to Rome.

Pick 3 of the other cities on your list, based on what interests you.

Are you just interested in "checking off" a list of destinations, or do you actually want to "see" what is there ?

Thats alot of travelling and not much time to recover you may well burn yourself out before the end of your trip

Choose between Italy and Greece.

For Italy 2 nights Venice, 4 nights Florence (more if you want day trips to Siena, Pisa, Lucca), 5 nights Rome 3 nights Naples/Amalfi Coast.

Dubrovnik is great but not so easy to visit unless you take a cruise. In fact, consider taking a cruise of the Greek Islands with the Adriatic as well.

Speaking strictly for Italy (been to Athens but too long ago to comment), I honestly think you're going to "experience" more packing up and dealing with transport than the locations on your list themselves. Two nights only allows for one full day in each location, which, aside from simply not being enough to cover the best of what they have to offer, doesn't allow for much of anything to go awry. Cancelled flight? Happened to two of our posters who traveled to Italy this year, and threw everything off by an entire day or more. Your one full day pours rain? Train strike?

You also risk that one full day being the one that the attractions you most want to see are closed.

You don't say what it is that all of you you are interested in seeing in each city? The personal must-sees are usually the reasons one should choose a location in the first place? All of your locations are going to be very warm to downright hot in summer, all of them are going to be crazy busy, and some of the top attractions require pre-reservations/ticketing to avoid wasting a LOT of time standing in long queues: it's not just a matter of planning number of nights but a strategy for efficient sightseeing as well.

That said, here's my 2-cents:
Venice: 2 nights minimum, and 3 if arriving on an international flight

Florence: I dearly love this city but if you're not interested in Renaissance/Medieval art and architecture, you may not. As previously mentioned, this is also a popular base for easy day-tripping to some other Tuscan locations (Siena, Lucca, etc). Anyway, just for Florence itself, I'll say 3 nights/two full days minimum. Four nights is better and allows for a day trip, although we had no problem filling 5 nights/4.5 days days here.

Rome: Over 3 trips, I've a total of nearly two weeks in this one and am not even close to running out of things to see. 4 nights/3 FULL days is what I personally consider the absolute minimum one should allow. The travelers who've tended not to like Rome are the ones who only gave it a 2-3 days: it takes more than that to get one's head around it and beyond the masses overrunning the Colosseum and Vatican.

Amalfi Coast: I'd scratch this one unless you can give it 4 nights. Transport around the region isn't exactly speedy, and there's a lot of ground to cover.

We all travel differently, and it's YOUR trip (actually, it's 9 peoples' trips) and not mine but I figure our time and money are best spent seeing/experiencing the destinations themselves versus too much packing/unpacking, moving hotels and dealing with train stations and airports? We've spent as long as 3 weeks at a time JUST in Italy and could easily have spent far more had we had the vacation time!

That looks an absolute nightmare of a trip! All that packing/unpacking, travelling, trying to agree on what to see and where to eat. You're not actually going to see much of any of those places let alone experience them. I really don't see the point, why not pick two cities and do them the justice they deserve.

Two nights in a place means only one full day and perhaps part of another. Try for three nights each in Florence and the Amalfi Coast and four nights each in Venice and Rome. Save Greece for another trip.

The reason for this suggestion is this: It almost always takes longer to get from Point A to Point B than planned even if things go smoothly. It is not just the time needed in transit, it is also the time spent checking out of the hotel, getting to the train station, getting to the new hotel, and settling in.

Often times less is more. You want to have good memories of people, places, and things you did. Not just blurry memories of train stations.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, and I'm sure you'll have a great trip. Just food for thought

we want to experience as much of Europe as we can in the four weeks

You will not experience anything of Europe at all. You'll only catch a glimpse of each place and then have to hurry on. O.k., you can say you've been there, but what good is that if you haven't had any time to experience and enjoy a place? Traveling is not just about ticking things off on a list.

Plus, you are actually reducing your experience to only two weeks since you're going to be spending half of your vacation trying to get somewhere else.

That looks an absolute nightmare of a trip!

Absolutely. Everyone has the right to their own tastes of course, but I certainly wouldn't want to spend 50% of my vacation just getting from point A to point B, and that's what you are going to be doing with only two nights in each of those places. One day of travel, one day of vacation. One day of travel, one day of vacation.

At the end of that kind of a vacation, I'd feel that someone had robbed me of half my vacation time. I'd arrive at home feeling completely exhausted from all that rushing around, and I wouldn't even remember half the places I'd been to.

But if that's what makes you happy...

Three nights in each location would be a more practical minimum, especially with the arrival and possible jet-lag issues in Venice. If you saw all the Florence museums you wanted after two nights, then the next day could be used to side trip to Siena or a smaller Tuscan town, for variety. If "Amalfi Coast" means visiting Pompeii and more, then Sorrento is our preferred home base for transport connections.

Dubrovnik is not convenient to the rest of the trip. From Athens, flying to Dubrovnik is the only transport option. And then toward the north, flying will save a whole day (like 20-24 hours) of train travel. Also, Salzburg-Prague by train takes 6 hours, which might prompt you to skip Salzburg and fly directly from Athens to either Prague, Berlin, or Amsterdam, if you still have time for any of those. They are again big cities with lots to see.

I have to agree with the previous posters. You're cheating yourself by spending too little time in each place. For starters you need to add another day in each of these places. 2 extras for Rome and Florence. And have you factored in the time needed to get from your last Italian city to Athens? Or from Mykonos to one of the northern cities on your list? I haven't looked that up, but would guess that these would each take the better part of a full day.

I think you need to recalculate. And at least once a week have a really laid back day to relax and/or perhaps do laundry. You can't go, go, go for 4 weeks straight or you'll be risking exhaustion, illness, and friction in your group.

I am not as experienced a traveler as some of the posters, but we just got back from 10 days and we covered Naples (Ercolano actually), Rome, Cinque Terre and Florence in those 10 days. While I stand by the trip as a great experience, and I loved it, it is exhausting to change locations that frequently, and we spent a good amount of time traveling (trains, taxis, etc). We ended up in 5 different hotels (was supposed to be 4 but we added a day at the end and had to change hotels in Florence), and after 10 days, my family was ready to go home, I can't imagine it for a month. We ended up having to reorganize our trip after a flight cancellation pushed us back an entire day. You think it can't happen to you but it can, and if you only have 1-2 nights in your first location, your trip will be totally messed up if something like that happens. After the change, we only had 1 night in Ercolano, which translated to less than 18 hours on the ground (jetlagged. very tired) until we were on our way to Rome. That was a rough start. I also agree with others on the recommendation for 3 nights minimum in any place. There is so much to do/see in Rome and Florence! We had 3 days in Rome and 3.5 in Florence and I wish we had another in each. If you have the luxury of a month, I'd consider a week in Florence/Tuscany and at least 3-4 days in Rome. I'm sure it will be a great trip-have fun planning it all!

Dont you like your family.. lol

Two nights equals one full day only.

You list things like "Amalfi coast" as if its a train stop.. where exactly will you be going.. how will you get there..

Stop.

Plan on a day to get from place to place. and then add two full days to see a place.

I get wanted to travel faster than some folks.. but this is just a running trip of train stations , ferry landings and airports .
Youve been to Europe before so I am going to assume that you will be able to visit again someday and this isnt a once in a lifetime trip and you just want to tick boxes off on a "done" list.

Venice (3N)
Florence (3N)
Rome (4N)
Amalfi Coast (3N)
Athens (2N)
Mykonos (2N)
Santorini (2N)
Prague (3N)
Berlin (3N)
Amsterdam (3N)

victor,

I haven't read all the previous replies, but IMHO that Itinerary is far too ambitious for the time frame you've allowed.

As may have been mentioned earlier......

• two night stops only allow one day for touring, hardly enough time to see much. You're going to be spending a lot of your holiday checking in & out of hotels, packing & unpacking bags and seeing Europe through the window of a train or aircraft.
• the trips from Italy to Greece and Greece to Dubrovnik will take the better part of a full day (I know as I've travelled those or similar routes). Again that leaves you one day to see the sights.
• "next summer" will probably be hot and crowded so you may not be able to move as quickly as expected.
• a group of people generally moves at the speed of the slowest person. Although you've travelled together in the past, unexpected events can occur which affect the situation.

I'd recommend either increasing the time allotted to this part of your trip or skipping some of the destinations and seeing them on another occasion. Skipping Greece this time should allow adequate time to enjoy Italy, and that will facilitate your ongoing trip to Dubrovnik.

Good luck with your planning!

Guess we scared him (or her) away...

If you're OK with only having 1 or 1 1/2 days in each location then go ahead. That's an awful lot of moving around. I would suggest cutting your locations in half and spending more time in each. Spending only a day in Florence, Rome, or Athens is hardly worth going. Why don't you just focus on Italy for this trip and save Greece for another time?
To get a sense of travel time between cities, take a look at rome2rio.com. It will give you the travel times and approximate costs for a all the possible modes of transport between these places so you can get a realistic sense of how long you need to reserve for getting from one place to another. With the current itinerary you have you are spending a great deal of time in transit - not how I like to spend my vacations!