sbjmg

My wife and I (both of us are 29 years old) will be going to Europe for the first time and probably will not return for at least 5+ years. We are planning the trip in early to mid June. We have 14 days including travel, we live in San Diego, CA.

We plan on flying into London taking the underground train to Paris and then flying to Rome. If we plan on about 3 days per city we want to add one more destination.

Places we were thinking:

Naples, so we can go to Pompei, eat Pizza and go to Capri.
Munich, so we could go to Dachau, get to see part of Germany
Florence, so we could see David?

I have Attention Deficit Disorder and can not stay in the same place for more than 2 hours so the more stuff to do the better. I am not fixed on any of the above options and would love any suggestions so long as they make sense travel wise.

Thank you

jamikins

I think you would be better off sticking to the three places. You will lose about half a day each time you change locations and three locations would be perfect for your time. There are more than enough things to keep you going for way longer than 4ish days in each. Don't forget your first day will be lost to probably some jet lag...and the last getting ready to leave. A further day lost travelling to Paris and Rome...and the rest is really what you have left. Adding in more will increase your costs and eat up your time to actually see anything.

Don't forget to book your flights into London and out of Rome so you don't waste even more time and money getting back to London!

Avalon2

Having gone to UK 2 times a year for last 40 years and still want to go back and Paris for about 2 weeks evey year for last 20 years and the first time we went to Romspenthe whole 3 weeeks ther e and neveleft the city I can't imagine thinking you can do justice to more than 3 places in 14 days,
There is enough "stuff"n London to take up the whole trip!!

msteacher

There is lots and lots to see in the three cities you mention, so my suggestion would be to stick with just those three. Many folks spend months or years in any one of these cities and still don't see it all. If you absolutely had to add another place,Florence is the only somewhat reasonable possibility from your list, but again, I'd recommend sticking with the big three.

it will be helpful to think about the travel time involved in getting from place to place... you will lose most of a day to travel each time you move cities, so you will actually have less than 3 days in each. Also, remember that you will be jet-lagged after such a long flight, so you may want some extra time in London.

lynda_berlin

I also think staying in the 3 places is enough. You could go to Florence for the day from Rome if you want(there are fast trains). I would recommend you visit Ostia Antica which is near Rome (very near Fiumicino airport) rather than going down to Pompeii. Ostia is very atmospheric and has far fewer tourists.

janisj

You barely have time to see anything much in London/Paris/Rome - stick to just those three.

You have 14 days totals 2.5 of those are eaten up traveling to/from Europe. 1 more is lost traveling London > Paris and Paris > Rome (Hopefully you are flying home from Rome - if you have to return to London you will lose another full day)

so your 14 days is best case only 10.5 free for actually seeing/doing. and w/ jet lag and such you will get a glimpse of London a bit more of Paris and Rome.

sbjmg

Ok, I have been convinced. Three cities it is. I will be flying into London, taking the 2 hour train to Paris and I assume the best way to get to Rome is to fly (or is train better?). From Rome I will be flying back home to San Diego not London.

Now that we have this settled I should still have about 3.5-4 days each city. Now I am interested in what are the top thing I should do in Rome where should I go? Thank you for the Ostia Antica recommendation.

jamikins

I would get some good guide books so you can pick what what interests you...I love spending hours in wine bars, but you will have your own things you want to see. A good start are the destination pages here
http://www.fodors.com/world/europe/e...on/sights.html

http://www.fodors.com/world/europe/f...is/sights.html

http://www.fodors.com/world/europe/i...me/sights.html

Also the Top 10 travel guides I find good for short visits to cities.

I think flying is the best way to get between Paris and Rome.

Book your eurostar as soon as your dates are available to get the best price on www.eurostar.com

You can also read trip reports here. Just do a search for each city above!

janisj

"<i>taking the 2 hour train to Paris</i>"

That is by far the best option - just don't think the trip only takes 2 hours. By the time you check out/get to the station, the 45 minute advance check in, the trip, then getting to your Paris hotel/check in . . . really eats up about 1/2 a day.

Flying to Rome takes more time what w/ getting out to the airport, advance check in, traveling in to Rome . . . really talking 6 or 7 hours minimum.

So w/ such little time in each city, you need to be pretty selective what to see/do. Any of our favorites/'musts' might not interest you at all. so I agree, get a couple of guide books -- the Michelin Green guides, Insight, and DK Eyewitness are particularly good.

anneinmanhattan

Eurostar is generally 2 hours 15 minutes; recommended that you be at the station 30 minutes in advance of train departure. Depending on where you're staying in Paris, total time could be 3-1/2 to 4 hours if you're close to a metro stop.

FHurdle

Out of Venice, Florence, and Rome, the latter is my least favorite. You could fly or take a train from Paris to Venice and spend a couple nights and then go on to Rome. It's an easy train ride. Chances are you will enjoy Venice more.