First time in Europe-France and Italy or just France?
Apr 25th, 2015, 12:49 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First time in Europe-France and Italy or just France?
Hi, I am planning a 3 week trip to Europe next May.
Some background; It will be my first time in Europe, but my boyfriend's 3rd time. We will both be in our late 20's, will be backpacking, and would like to avoid having to rent a car as much as possible. We would like a mix of both cities and countryside/mountains.
Our first plan was to go to both France and Italy..
Rome-4 days
Tuscany-1 day
Venice-2 days
Milan and/or Turin-2 days
French Alps-5 days
Paris-6 days (including day trips to Champagne and Versailles)
Then we considered doing just France (and adding Normandy, Loire, Provence, the Riviera), and seeing more of one country vs. seeing very little of two countries. I'm not sure when the next time we would be able to make it back to Europe, so my question is; would I be missing out by not seeing some of Italy on this trip?
Also, as far as our first itinerary, I realize it is missing some important places, but with the exception of Milan vs Turin, we have carefully thought out where we would like to go, and won't change much. But any input would be greatly appreciated!
Some background; It will be my first time in Europe, but my boyfriend's 3rd time. We will both be in our late 20's, will be backpacking, and would like to avoid having to rent a car as much as possible. We would like a mix of both cities and countryside/mountains.
Our first plan was to go to both France and Italy..
Rome-4 days
Tuscany-1 day
Venice-2 days
Milan and/or Turin-2 days
French Alps-5 days
Paris-6 days (including day trips to Champagne and Versailles)
Then we considered doing just France (and adding Normandy, Loire, Provence, the Riviera), and seeing more of one country vs. seeing very little of two countries. I'm not sure when the next time we would be able to make it back to Europe, so my question is; would I be missing out by not seeing some of Italy on this trip?
Also, as far as our first itinerary, I realize it is missing some important places, but with the exception of Milan vs Turin, we have carefully thought out where we would like to go, and won't change much. But any input would be greatly appreciated!
Apr 25th, 2015, 01:15 PM
#2
I think you've answered the question yourself when you say "...seeing more of one country vs. seeing very little of two countries." At least that's my own philosophy. Others will, I'm sure, say you have time for both.
As I see it, if you concentrate on just 1 country, it gives you time to explore some smaller places, which tend to be my favorites. Otherwise, it's pretty much hit the usual suspects, as your list above suggests, without much time to wander. And May is off-season enough that you could plan for the cities and let the smaller ones in between be the surprises, as you go.
As I see it, if you concentrate on just 1 country, it gives you time to explore some smaller places, which tend to be my favorites. Otherwise, it's pretty much hit the usual suspects, as your list above suggests, without much time to wander. And May is off-season enough that you could plan for the cities and let the smaller ones in between be the surprises, as you go.
Apr 25th, 2015, 02:07 PM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok thank you, I do agree that it is more logical to spend more time in one country. However, I feel I need to be a little more blunt with my question; Is Rome worth splitting the trip between Italy and France? While I would love to see the rest of Italy, I know that I would be ok waiting some years for another trip to Europe. I was just curious as to people's opinions if seeing Rome is worth skipping all the other areas of France listed (and vice versa).
Apr 25th, 2015, 02:20 PM
#6
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think two countries in three weeks is very workable!
Rome-4 days ... not too much time, as there's so much history to see, and you'll be jet lagged your first day
Tuscany-1 day ... maybe Florence, a hill village, or (more outside the box) Assisi?
Venice-2 days ...
Milan and/or Turin-2 days ... get tickets for the Last Supper in Milan as soon as you know your date
French Alps-5 days
Paris-6 days (including day trips to Champagne and Versailles) ... think I'd visit the Champagne region on your way to Paris
Rome-4 days ... not too much time, as there's so much history to see, and you'll be jet lagged your first day
Tuscany-1 day ... maybe Florence, a hill village, or (more outside the box) Assisi?
Venice-2 days ...
Milan and/or Turin-2 days ... get tickets for the Last Supper in Milan as soon as you know your date
French Alps-5 days
Paris-6 days (including day trips to Champagne and Versailles) ... think I'd visit the Champagne region on your way to Paris
Apr 25th, 2015, 03:08 PM
#7
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On our first fast-paced trip to Europe in 1987 we saw a lot of cities/sites, but didn't enjoy or remember much of that trip. Three years later, we returned to almost the exact same cities/sites & spent more time in each one & enjoyed them a lot more. Decades later, we realized that there are sooooooo many wonderful things to see and experience in Europe that you can't hope to see them all in a lifetime. Best advice is to slow down and waste as little time as possible in transit from A to B to C.
Everything on your list is worth seeing (perhaps Milan is an exception - it was for me & we've never visited Turin).
Your "France only" itinerary is a little too cramped (IMO) - especially since you expect to travel across all of France to get from Paris to Normandy, to Loire, to Provence to Cote D'Azur to Alps to Paris or Geneva for the return home.
Consider the following itinerary for France:
- Fly to Paris & spend 6 nights there. Do the trip to Champagne on your last day - you may enjoy Paris so much that you choose not to do it. Perhaps skip Versailles too if your next destination is the Loire. Or skip both & reduce your nights in Paris by 1 or do an organized trip to the WWII stuff if that's your main interest in Normandy.
- Take the 1 hr TGV to St Pierre des Corps (Loire), and spend 3 nights there. Rent a car or try to find some kind of organized tour.
- Take the 4 hr TGV from St Pierre to the Avignon TGV station & spend 4 nights in Provence. You'll need a car to really enjoy Provence in only 3 days
- Drive 2 1/2 hrs to Nice, return the car, and spend 3-4 nights in Nice.
- Take the 7 hr train (1 train change) to Annecy & spend 4 nights in the Alps. You may need a car for this if you want to get to Chamonix/Mt Blanc (2 1/4 train trip one-way).
- Take the train to Geneva or Paris for your flight home.
Stu Dudley
Everything on your list is worth seeing (perhaps Milan is an exception - it was for me & we've never visited Turin).
Your "France only" itinerary is a little too cramped (IMO) - especially since you expect to travel across all of France to get from Paris to Normandy, to Loire, to Provence to Cote D'Azur to Alps to Paris or Geneva for the return home.
Consider the following itinerary for France:
- Fly to Paris & spend 6 nights there. Do the trip to Champagne on your last day - you may enjoy Paris so much that you choose not to do it. Perhaps skip Versailles too if your next destination is the Loire. Or skip both & reduce your nights in Paris by 1 or do an organized trip to the WWII stuff if that's your main interest in Normandy.
- Take the 1 hr TGV to St Pierre des Corps (Loire), and spend 3 nights there. Rent a car or try to find some kind of organized tour.
- Take the 4 hr TGV from St Pierre to the Avignon TGV station & spend 4 nights in Provence. You'll need a car to really enjoy Provence in only 3 days
- Drive 2 1/2 hrs to Nice, return the car, and spend 3-4 nights in Nice.
- Take the 7 hr train (1 train change) to Annecy & spend 4 nights in the Alps. You may need a car for this if you want to get to Chamonix/Mt Blanc (2 1/4 train trip one-way).
- Take the train to Geneva or Paris for your flight home.
Stu Dudley
Apr 25th, 2015, 03:27 PM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on how you like to travel. Personally, I'd prefer to spend more time in fewer places, thereby wasting less time in transit. Every time you change locations, you lose much of a day (think from the time you check out of your lodgings in one place until you are checked in at the next place. That also means that if you want, say, three days in a place, you need to spend 4 nights.
For me, I'd stick to France. We were in Paris last May for 10 days and found so much to do and see that we decided against any day trips.
No matter what you choose for this trip you will miss more than you see. That's ok. You can see different things next trip.
For me, I'd stick to France. We were in Paris last May for 10 days and found so much to do and see that we decided against any day trips.
No matter what you choose for this trip you will miss more than you see. That's ok. You can see different things next trip.
Apr 25th, 2015, 03:40 PM
#9
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to visit Italy, I would:
- Fly to Rome & spend 5 nights there (we always add a night to our first destination to recover from jet lag)
- Take one of the many 1 hr trains to Orvieto, rent a car, stow the bags in the trunk, & visit Orvieto (one of our favorite hill villages in Italy). Then drive 1 hr to the beautiful Val'd'Orcia/Pienza and stay there for 4 nights. Prettiest countryside we've visited in Europe (IMO). Visit Siena as a day-trip (45 mins to the Porta Romana).
- Drive to Chiusi, return the car & take the 4 1/2 hr train (1 change) to Venice & spend 3-4 nights there.
- Fly from Venice to Paris & spend 6 nights in Paris.
Comment - maybe I'm an old foggie - but you couldn't pay me enough to visit Rome, Florence, & Venice back-to-back-to-back in May. The only time we've really enjoyed Florence was in late March - when it was quite crowded - but not shoulder-to-shoulder like from April through October (I don't like huge crowds).
Stu Dudley
- Fly to Rome & spend 5 nights there (we always add a night to our first destination to recover from jet lag)
- Take one of the many 1 hr trains to Orvieto, rent a car, stow the bags in the trunk, & visit Orvieto (one of our favorite hill villages in Italy). Then drive 1 hr to the beautiful Val'd'Orcia/Pienza and stay there for 4 nights. Prettiest countryside we've visited in Europe (IMO). Visit Siena as a day-trip (45 mins to the Porta Romana).
- Drive to Chiusi, return the car & take the 4 1/2 hr train (1 change) to Venice & spend 3-4 nights there.
- Fly from Venice to Paris & spend 6 nights in Paris.
Comment - maybe I'm an old foggie - but you couldn't pay me enough to visit Rome, Florence, & Venice back-to-back-to-back in May. The only time we've really enjoyed Florence was in late March - when it was quite crowded - but not shoulder-to-shoulder like from April through October (I don't like huge crowds).
Stu Dudley
Apr 25th, 2015, 03:57 PM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think you can get a taste of 2 countries in 3 weeks but I would:
Drop Milan and Turin unless you have a very strong reason to be there
Not sure why you need 5 days in the French Alps - too late for winter sports - and while pretty not worth so many days versus other places. I might split this time between the Alps and another city/area of France - perhaps Lyons or Beaune or similar - to get an idea of something besides Paris
All of this is easily doable by train - although we have driven since we just prefer road trips - and the many opportunities to wander as the mood takes us.
Drop Milan and Turin unless you have a very strong reason to be there
Not sure why you need 5 days in the French Alps - too late for winter sports - and while pretty not worth so many days versus other places. I might split this time between the Alps and another city/area of France - perhaps Lyons or Beaune or similar - to get an idea of something besides Paris
All of this is easily doable by train - although we have driven since we just prefer road trips - and the many opportunities to wander as the mood takes us.
Apr 25th, 2015, 11:57 PM
#11
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my reckoning, you haven't factored in the time it takes to get from one place to the next. You are planning a 3 week holiday, but have allocated a total of 20 days for the places you want to see. As said above, it takes the best part of a day to get from one place to the next, no matter what your means of travel.
Do you want to snap a photo, tick that one off your 'bucket list' and move on - or do you want to take the time to really soak up a little of the atmosphere of a place? That's the first decision to make, then look realistically at how much time you will actually need to spend at each stop. Di
Do you want to snap a photo, tick that one off your 'bucket list' and move on - or do you want to take the time to really soak up a little of the atmosphere of a place? That's the first decision to make, then look realistically at how much time you will actually need to spend at each stop. Di
Apr 26th, 2015, 01:29 AM
#12
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"would I be missing out by not seeing some of Italy on this trip?"
IMO, it's a very personal choice.
If you limit your travel to one geographic region, you will have the opportunity to recognize just how different one area can be from another and to appreciate the finer distinctions between regions. Whether those regions cross modern borders or not, I think it is fascinating to see just how far places were from one another in the days of travel by horse (or foot!) as evidenced by the differences between places that seem virtually adjacent by modern standards. JMO.
And then there's the question of travel time -- a question some others have addressed. How much time will you spend going from France to Italy, time that you could be using to visit things nearer your other destinations? And I'll join in with those saying that it isn't clear that you have allowed yourselves enough time for moving from place to place under EITHER of your scenarios. Only 4 days for Rome? Only 2 days for Venice? Maybe those time frames would work for you, but you list 20 days of "visits" in a "3 week" trip -- leaving no time to get from place to place! I recommend that you mark a calendar with the things you most want to see (taking actual opening hours into consideration -- they can matter!). Then pencil in your transportation, add some time on either side (for getting to/from your lodging, checking in/out, packing/unpacking, getting oriented, etc.). Then see how things fit together.
And one more thing you might want to consider: I didn't focus my travels on specific regions when I first travelled. I gave myself more-or-less enough time for each city I visited, but I didn't generally do day trips. And now, I find it hard to justify going back to places "just" to "sweep up" what I missed first time around, when there is SO much else crying out to me -- entire regions I haven't touched at all! YMMV...
The good news: You don't have a bad choice here. Figure out what matters most to you for this trip, see what the trade-offs among YOUR highest priorities will be, and then make a hard decision.
IMO, it's a very personal choice.
If you limit your travel to one geographic region, you will have the opportunity to recognize just how different one area can be from another and to appreciate the finer distinctions between regions. Whether those regions cross modern borders or not, I think it is fascinating to see just how far places were from one another in the days of travel by horse (or foot!) as evidenced by the differences between places that seem virtually adjacent by modern standards. JMO.
And then there's the question of travel time -- a question some others have addressed. How much time will you spend going from France to Italy, time that you could be using to visit things nearer your other destinations? And I'll join in with those saying that it isn't clear that you have allowed yourselves enough time for moving from place to place under EITHER of your scenarios. Only 4 days for Rome? Only 2 days for Venice? Maybe those time frames would work for you, but you list 20 days of "visits" in a "3 week" trip -- leaving no time to get from place to place! I recommend that you mark a calendar with the things you most want to see (taking actual opening hours into consideration -- they can matter!). Then pencil in your transportation, add some time on either side (for getting to/from your lodging, checking in/out, packing/unpacking, getting oriented, etc.). Then see how things fit together.
And one more thing you might want to consider: I didn't focus my travels on specific regions when I first travelled. I gave myself more-or-less enough time for each city I visited, but I didn't generally do day trips. And now, I find it hard to justify going back to places "just" to "sweep up" what I missed first time around, when there is SO much else crying out to me -- entire regions I haven't touched at all! YMMV...
The good news: You don't have a bad choice here. Figure out what matters most to you for this trip, see what the trade-offs among YOUR highest priorities will be, and then make a hard decision.
Apr 26th, 2015, 08:06 AM
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all so much for the great advice, it just feels impossible to choose between so many amazing places. Also, I can admit that I did not fully take into consideration the time it takes to get from place to place (such as getting to and from the train station, the number of trains per day), so I will definitely need to choose fewer places.
