too quick of a trip?

April, can you split the days into a few days before the cruise and then a few days after it ends? You might feel more rested after the cruise. Are you prone to jet lag? Do you have specific things you want to do/see? I usually allow for a half-day down-time on travel days, then I make a list of what I want to do after researching opening/closing times - I split the day into morning, afternoon and evening (important in Rome because many places close for a few hours in the afternoon). If you have the RS guidebook(s), there are suggestions for walking self-guided tours that hit some of the highlights in the cities you mention; this will help you gauge distances between sites and give you ideas for where to stop for meals, etc.

Thanks for the quick reply, like I said, we are Europe "virgins" and so we are looking forward to the typical tourist sights, Tower, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, Eiffle tower, Champs, Colliseum, etc. I want a nice time but not spend an entire month. The cruise is 12 days and leaves from Venice and ends at Athens. Perhaps we should just do the cruise and leave the rest for another trip?

"3 days in London, 2 days in Paris and 3 days in Rome" If these are full days, not counting travel days, I'd say it's sufficient to get a taste. If not, then no. But I would do 3 London, 3 Paris and 2 Rome.

Really, more days in Paris than Rome? I seem to think that there is much more to see in Rome for some reason. (having never been there, i will have to rely on your advise.) Maybe we should just bite the bullet and take a whole month...what do you think?

The penny pincher in me doesn't want to spend the money on the plane tickets and not see everything possible. The jet lag is a concern, we didn't do well with it on our trip to the Philipines. The more I think about it, perhaps we will just try to do Rome and then onto Venice for the cruise. We really can't take that much time at this point in our lives, but I'm afraid I'll never have the chance again. Oh, so much to consider!

I know people who have been satisfied by two whole days in Paris, although I would suggest three. And I agree with those who say four days are needed for a "well rounded" tour of Rome- but three days could do in a pinch. But again, if you're including travel between the cities in those numbers, it's cutting it too thin.

Lets remember something, two "nights" in a city is only one full day of sightseeing. I think most people can at least agree that its difficult to cover a city like Paris in one full day.
Frankly I would think that for one week of extra ( excluding the cruise) holiday in Europe two major cities is more then enough. So perhaps fly into Paris , 3 nights there, then fly to Rome( try Easyjet or Vueling) and fly home from Rome. Or do same, but do London and Rome. I think Paris , Rome AND London is too much for one week. Each one of those cities can easily fill one week.

I think your idea of just doing Rome before the cruise is sound. You won't feel so rushed worn out before the cruise as you might if you try to hit the 'big 3'. And I am certain that there is more than enough to fill your time in Rome (it's on my bucket list- haven't talked hubby into it YET).

London, Paris, and Rome are all large cities with weeks' worth of things to see. I feel that if you try, as newbies in Europe, to see all three in 8 days, you will be so burnt out that you will want to spend your whole cruise in your cabin. Picture spending 3 days in Montreal, 3 days in Toronto, and 2 days in Vancouver, for someone who's never been to North America before. Then multiply this by a factor of 3 or 5 or so, because the longer history and greater density of your three target cities means they're much more exhausting. If you really want to see these three cities in a hurry, I'd try to find a guided tour that covers them, and take it after your cruise. You can see the highlights much faster on a tour, since someone else is handling the logistics. For instance, here's Trafalgar Tours London, Paris and Rome Moderate (they also have a Deluxe version). I'm sure other companies offer something similar. Notice that even this guided, whirlwind, highlights tour is 11 days when including travel days. And don't try to emulate this pace on your own. You cannot see everything, even in a lifetime, so you have to make choices, regardless of how much time and money you have for this trip. All of us here have been through these dilemmas, so we understand the pain of having to "cut" something that you were really counting on seeing.

Our normal pattern for a cruise is to go in a week to ten days early and to take another week to ten days after the cruise. I would do an open jaw ticket - into Rome and home from either Paris or London. I would go into Rome, catch Florence for a couple days then to Venice. After a couple of days in Athens, fly to Paris, then on to London and home. How many days you spend in each is irrelevant. You see what you can with the time you have. We have spent nearly a month in London and three weeks in Rome over the years and still have not seen everything we want to see in those cities. Ideally I would view three days as a min for any city but that is not always possible.
For that type of trip you need to pack carefully so that you are not hauling around a lot of extra luggage. We take our normal, back pack style of carry on and one rolling carry on bag with the extra clothes for both of us for the cruise.

April, you have five days and (I gather) the cruise leaves from Venice. Consider flying into Venice a day early, then spending the remaining 4 days getting a small taste of Rome. Venice better that de-jet-lagging in Rome. If you reconsider and have more time to spend, other things are possible.

It's not that 8 days isn't enough time to get a nice taste of 3 cities, it's that 8 days during which one has to travel between those cities that becomes problematic. If we had Star Trek style transporters, it wouldn't be a problem. I would consider focusing entirely on Italy, or doing one city plus Italy at the most.

I see nothing wrong with your first scenario. If you've never seen Paris, London and Rome and want to see all 3, do it. What's "enough" time? 2 days in Paris is better than 1, 3 days in Paris is one day better, 4 days even better, etc. One day in Paris is better than never seeing it in your life. Ditto for Rome and London. 33 years ago I took a 6 week trip all over Europe, and it was usually 2-3 days per medium to big city: I saw Amsterdam, London, Edinborough, Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse (3 hours between trains), Geneva, Vienna, Rome, Florence, Venice, Genoa. Yes, it was a whirlwind, but I got a taste of each place and knew where I wanted to go back to and where I didn't. So since then I've been to Paris 8-10 times, and several others, but only Geneva once, 2 years ago, when we had to stay overnight before flying home. I hated Geneva as much then as I did 33 years ago. So as I said, go for as much as possible.

Only you can say what you will regret not doing.... I try to travel with 'no regrets', and for my first trip it was a whirlwind 'taste of' and I have never regretted it for a minute. As a matter of fact, if there was one trip I could
re-live, it would be that one. You can take the HOHO buss and see a lot of the highlights... as said earlier, I would rather have one day in Paris than none, especially if you think you might not be able to return for some time.

If this is your first and possibly only trip to Europe, may I ask why you are takiing a cruise? If it were me, I'd skip the cruise and spend my time seeing what I want to see. However, I know a lot of people love cruises.

We love to cruise, and love the way there is no moving from hotel to hotel and packing and unpacking every time you want to see a new city. I don't think you can match the value of a cruise and see everything that they can take you to for the same price on your own. (maybe I'm wrong). We just need make up our minds and do it! I think we have decided on Rome for 4 days and then board the ship. If I want to return to Europe...I know I will find the time and money somewhere.

FWIW, I think you've made the right choice. Enough time to get over jet lag and experience one great city, then the cruise. Hopefully you'll have more chances to see other parts of Europe. For the future, you might consider a river cruise, same advantage of not packing and unpacking, more time in the places you stop. We love cruising too and we've found it works best after, not before, land travel, gets us rested up after charging around sightseeing till we drop. Have a good trip and, as RS says, assume you will return (to Europe anyway).

April, I think your plan looks quite do-able, although you may want to save Rome for after the cruise when you're rested (or consider spending one of the days/nights exploring Venice). You can't see a whole city in a few days, but you can hit major sites and get a feeling for whether you want to return on another trip, and this is a great opportunity for that. To make good use of your time, you might want to prebook some walking tours on the internet. I've used Context Travel in a number of cities and they've always been great; and their groups are very small, which allows you to see more/cover more territory. The RS guidebooks also identify local guides and walking tour companies. You might check Skyscanner plus Ryan Air, EasyJet, etc, for intercity flights; some of the prices are remarkable and far cheaper than trains (although check carefully for where the airports are since many use remote airports, and book early for best prices). I'm flying Lourdes, France, to Milan next month for about 1/3 the cost of the train, and a fraction of the time investment.