lahamlet

From California, my first and perhaps my only trip to Europe. Looking for advice from frequent travelers. Like seeing the sights, history, architecture, art, theatre, food, wine, and enjoying the culture. I am going late fall, Octoberish. My original plan was fly into London 2 nights and take Euro to Paris for 4 nights, Train to Amsterdam for 3 nights, flight to Florence/Tus for 3 nights, train to Rome for 3-4 days back Home. London and Amst are optional locations but i would like to see them. And London seems to make sense because of being on route to Paris and the ease of the Euro to Paris. And although the Remb. and VG. museum, AF house sound like must sees, perhaps that doesn't make sense time-wise? Sounds like alot but I may never be back?? Two weeks in Paris and two weeks in Italy would be great, but not on this trip. And the upside of seeing these different locations will inform me in the future if I travel back. Thx for your comments.

IMDonehere

You have conflicted thoughts and a lot of time spent moving from city to city.

You should rethink what is most important to you to see. If you just wave at something as you pass, you certainly would not get a feel for a culture. But if you only want to check off boxes to say, "I saw XXXX," then that something else again.

thursdaysd

Two nights gives you one day. At the beginning of the trip you will likely still be jet lagged. London is a huge city crammed with things to see and do. Allocating just two nights makes very little sense.

Lay this out on a calendar, including transport time. Remember that moving from city A to city B includes packing, checking of your hotel/hostel, getting to station/airport, waiting around if it's a flight, and then reversing the process in city B.

janisj

IMO/IME either include London but give it at least 4 or 5 nights . . . or eliminate it.

As thursdaysd says -- your two nights nets you 1 day and a few hours for London and most likely having flown across 8 time zones over night you will be in a daze for the first day or so.

(I fly from California to London 2 or 3 times a year and even in a lie flat bed in Business Class I get very little sleep. If you are flying coach plan on being awake the best part of 30 hours door to door)

Underhill

Drop Amsterdam; with judicious juggling you might be able to fit in the rest, although two nights in London just won't let you see very much.

Hooameye

"and take Euro to Paris for 4 nights,"

The euro is the currency in parts of Europe, the train between London and Paris is the Eurostar.

hetismij2

Or drop London, fly into Paris. Add the London nights to Italy.

hetismij2

In fact flying into Amsterdam may be better - spend your jet lag time there, as it is small, walkable and you can do things in small doses, then train to Paris and onto Italy.
Do book the Anne Frankhuis as soon as you know your dates. You can also book the van Gogh online.

StCirq

<<And the upside of seeing these different locations will inform me in the future if I travel back.>>

Not if you just fly by them, as you seem to be planning to do.

isabel

I agree that you need to drop at least one place - either London or Amsterdam - and add the days to the one you keep - in order to have a much more pleasant trip.

I would also think about what you want to see, and how you want to experience, the places you go. For example, you mention that "the Remb. and VG. museum, AF house sound like must sees". Well, they are wonderful places, but just because they are the most 'famous' and the first things the guidebooks mention, doesn't mean they are the 'best' things for every visitor. I think too many people feel they need to go to a specific site. So when people ask "what did you do in Amsterdam" they can say, I went to these 3 sites, rather than, "I just wandered all around". While aimless wandering might not be the best use of time, I find that if I do some research, about neighborhoods, architecture, parks, etc. and then do some flexible walking tours (on my own, not with a group), I really get a great sense of the place. Not that you shouldn't do major sites, but there is SO MUCH MORE to any of those cities than the first 5 or so things on the 'must see' lists. Ask yourself, do you have museums near where you live that have Van Goghs and Rembrandts, etc. What is it you hope to get from visiting the Anne Frank house. Another place in Amsterdam that has really interesting history and lets you get to see the inside of an historic canal house if the Church in the Attic Museum (www.amsterdamsights.com/museums/opsolder.html) and it has no lines and no crowds. Just exploring the neighborhoods and canals,take a canal boat trip, etc. can be a much more enjoyable way to experience Amsterdam than standing in lines and going from room to room in a museum.

I'm using Amsterdam as an example since that's the one where you seemed to be considering going because of specific sites, but the same holds true of London, Paris and Rome as well.

Whathello

You should definitely go to P, maybe drop R and keep it for later.
Add B as it is bet. P and A. Take the T for that.

IMDonehere

You should definitely go to P, maybe drop R and keep it for later.
Add B as it is bet. P and A. Take the T for that.
________________________________
Now can you read the line below without your glasses?

menachem

hhhhh

Kathie

Think about the radio of travel time to "being there" time. Just getting to Europe from California take a lot of time and each time you change locations takes up even more time - half a day at a minimum.

If it was me - and it isn't - I'd choose three cities so I'd have enough time to see/do/experience what I came for. Five nights in a place gives you four full days, enough to get a flavor for that particular city.

lahamlet

Thanks for all of the replies, many will be taken to heart. More days in fewer cities is a much better enjoyable plan. Going to skip Amsterdam until another trip. London, Paris and then Italy. Florence/Tuscany is still a bit of a quandary, you could spend a week or two in Tuscany/Cirque Terra, Lake Como, wine tasting etc. Perhaps a base of Rome with a day trip to Florence to see a few sites???. Save the rest of Tuscany for another trip, Perhaps Tuscany, Swiss trip? I am reading alot about the rush and fast pace of Rome, any thoughts. I have been to NY a few times and like the energy there. Any ideas on London, Paris and Rome lodging. Budget is 200 US a night. I have two free nights at Hyatt Paris Vendome and going to add another few nights at a nearby hotel to make the move during my stay easier. Probably going to fly Norwegian to London(GTW), prices are incredible. Like to fly Alitalia direct but their prices?