We are thinking about a trip to Cinque Terra, Lake Cuomo, Croatia and Amsterdam. Is this too ambitious or would two weeks be enough? Any suggestions on what might be better? We also have an interest in the boot of Italy.
Posted by
Seattle, WA
2 posts
I've never been to Europe so I'm not sure if it's overly ambitious but we are planning our trip for about that time of year and I alsohave the feeling I'm going to plan too much for us. Good luck with your planning!
Posted by
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
1127 posts
I think 3 countries in 2 weeks is too much. Stick to Italy & hit hit the boot.
Posted by
Forest Grove, OR
11780 posts
I agree with Samsn. We did our first trip October 2010 and spent three full weeks in Italy. I still feel like I overscheduled with 6 locations in 21 nights. The CT and Lake Como are great, but Rome and Venice and Florence should not be missed. With two weeks, if you want to see the CT and Lake Como, add Venice and/or Florence to round out your two weeks. You can spend 3 nights in the CT, 3 at Lake Como, 4 each in Florence and Venice to make 14 nights. Even that may be rushing a bit, but you'll see more by staying in one country and not spending so mcuh time changing locations.
Posted by
Tresana, Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
23626 posts
I think there is a tendency for first time travelers to Europe to think of going to Europe like going to California. Europe is a big area. So look at a map carefully. You are covering a lot ground of between Croatia and Amsterdam. We could easily spend the two weeks in northern Europe and never get beyond Paris. You could lose nearly four days or maybe a a third of your trip to just traveling. In a two week trip you really only have 11 or 12 good days. Personally, and because it works well for us. we tend to focus on a area with limited travel and location change. Saves money and is far more relaxing than constantly moving. I would focus on Italy and save Croatia and Amsterdam for another trip. October is a terrific time to travel especially in those areas.