Neecey

Hi, I've just begun planning a first trip to Europe, and wow, is it overwhelming! Discovering that you can't do it all in 2 weeks! So what I thought might be logical is take my wish list and divide it into 2 trips--split the travel between countries most efficiently. Hopefully traveling next spring, 2018. And then plan on a second trip 2-3 years later. We can only get away for 17 days at a time, including travel days.
Also, bear in mind, we'll be traveling with our girls who will be 15 and 12 year old, and honestly I'm wondering if some of the churches, castles, and art (Italy and Germany?) might be better appreciated on the later trip. So besides logistics, maybe some specific cities are more kid-friendly and better to see on this first trip?

If I had plenty of money and time, I'd like to see London, Paris, the Rhine region, Bavaria, on to Venice, then, Rome, Tuscany, and somehow fit in Provence.

Is there some logical way to see all this over 2 different trip, 2 weeks each?

My initial thought was Paris, London, Rome on the first trip. But then I thought it might make more sense to see all of Italy (maybe with a side trip to Munich) on a separate trip. So maybe just Paris and London for now? Should we attempt Rome also or is there not enough time? If not, what else besides Paris and London can I fit into two weeks? Wondering about a road trip to Provence from Paris--would that be doable or good for teens?

And is there a good way to incorporate the Rhine valley and Munich into a France or Italy trip (for now or later)?

I've read quite a bit and watched lots of travel videos, but am otherwise clueless--so be totally honest with me. Thanks in advance.

bvlenci

A trip to Paris and London could be combined with some more rural travel, either in the UK or in France. For instance, you could probably visit London, Scotland, and Paris on a two-week trip, or London, Paris and Provence. Other areas could be substituted for Scotland and Provence. Switzerland is fairly easily reached from Paris, and there are many parts of France and England that would be easy to fit in. It would depend on your interests.

I would recommend letting your daughters have a major voice in the decision. Give them some guidebooks with lots of photos to help them make an informed decision; the DK Eyewitness Guides are particularly good in this respect.

Edward2005

Have the first trip focus on Italy. Fly into Venice and out of Rome (or vice versa). Do the standard Venice-Florence-Rome visit but throw in 4-5 days at an agriturismo in Umbria or Tuscany to appreciate the Italian countryside and take a break from the big cities. Allow 4 nights each in the cities.

Trying to cram Munich or Provence into the same trip will rush everything. Do them in a second or third trip.

bilboburgler

I'd look at Paris, London and the Rhine. Actually I prefer the Mosel but simialr stuff.

Fly into London, jet lag day, 5 days, Train to Paris 5 days, train into Germany then hire car and fly out of say Frankfurt.

Bavaria, I still don't see the merit but that would take more time. It is just further away and those motorways are dull

Italy into one trip is sensible but you need to decide between north and south.

Francewithfive

I would go in a bit of a different direction if it will be your daighter's first trip. It is sensible to see one country but from my past experience traveling with my three kids (7,12,14), seeing two countries in one trip adds to the interest and excitement! I would suggest Italy and France. They will find it fun to experience two very different countries: the food, language, culture, fashion, shopping!
When we travel with our kids we always try to do a bit of time in the city and a bit in the country.
For France you could consider 4 nights in Paris and then 3 nights in the countryside wherever interests you. We went to the south of France around Bonnieux and it was heavenly. Then off to Italy, perhaps a week in an agriturismo in Tuscany followed by Rome (our family favourite!) for 3 nights.
You must consider how you will travel from place to place as well. Will you take the train? Rent a car? Fly? It is possible to cross the border into Italy with a rental car (which we did) but it will cost more.

PalenQ

And is there a good way to incorporate the Rhine valley and Munich into a France or Italy trip (for now or later)?

two weeks?

Paris 4 days

train to Rhine Valley- 2 nights -one day doing a K-D.com boat trip thru the best part of the Rhine - the Rhine gorge-stay in a cute Rhineside town

Train to Munich - 3 days

Overnight train Munich to Florence or Rome - 2 days in former 4 days in latter

So yes but that's not much time and too hurried for many.

anyway trains are great and faster than cars (which are good for slowly touring rural areas but trains are best for large tourist cities where cars are useless.)

for lots of great info on trains check www.seat61.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.ricksteves.com.

Fly into Paris and out of Rome

Victoria211

I would recommend letting your daughters have a major voice in the decision.

Fussgaenger

"And is there a good way to incorporate the Rhine valley and Munich into a France or Italy trip (for now or later)?"

Is it Munich, or "Bavaria", as you said previously? Bavaria is huge and diverse. France + Rhine/Mosel + "Bavaria" (if by that you mean maybe a couple of Bavarian destinations) might work, but only if by "France" you mean Paris. Adding Provence into that mix sounds implausible.

Anywhere you stay is worth staying for at least 3 nights. Here's a suggestion that you can play with:

Use Paris and Munich airports - fly into one, out of the other. Two major train legs w/ approx. travel times:

Paris (4 nights min.) - Rhine/Mosel (3 nights min.) = 5 train hours
Rhine/Mosel - Munich (3 nights min.) = 5 train hours

You could toss in a stopover for 3 nights or so mid-way to Munich in Franconia (northern Bavaria) for Bamberg, Nuremberg, Bad Windsheim, Rothenburg, Würzburg, Iphofen. Stay in one, visit the towns that interest you most on day trips.

You could toss in a day trip or two from Paris (Versailles? D-Day beaches?)

You could toss in a day trip or two from Munich as well (Garmisch/Mittenwald? Salzburg? Herrenchiemsee Palace?) H'chiemsee palace is in Prien, 1 hour from Munich by train, on an island in Lake Chiemsee - http://www.ferienhaus-am-chiemsee.co...background.jpg )

PalenQ suggests "...one day doing a K-D.com boat trip thru the best part of the Rhine..."

The cruise is a very good idea but done right it should require only 1.5 hours (from Bingen to St. Goar.) What takes time in this area is visiting the old-world villages and castles that dot the river banks - you can do this visiting most efficiently by train:

Cochem (surprising that PalenQ didn't mention) - http://www.der-takt.de/typo3temp/_pr...087e83a8d1.jpg

Marksburg Castle in Braubach - http://www.marksburg.de/en/

Burg Eltz Castle (near Cochem) - https://de.best-wallpaper.net/wallpa..._1920x1200.jpg

Bacharach: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...arach_BW_9.JPG

Jean

"Hopefully traveling next spring, 2018. And then plan on a second trip 2-3 years later."

Consider that in 2-3 years your older daughter might have a study or work schedule that could make it difficult to take a 2-week trip. Maybe give her interests first priority for the 2018 trip?

And you know your kids best. Would they be more enthused about being in cities rather than somewhat isolated place in the countryside? I know when I was that age, I didn't appreciate the quiet atmosphere and pretty scenery of the countryside as much as the energy and excitement of cities.

PalenQ

PalenQ suggests "...one day doing a K-D.com boat trip thru the best part of the Rhine..."

The cruise is a very good idea but done right it should require only 1.5 hours (from Bingen to St. Goar.) What takes time in this area is visiting the old-world villages and castles that dot the river banks - you can do this visiting most efficiently by train

Yes but my response was thinking with so many other places to want to visit a full day may be all that they spend here- I would not spend more time on a first trip with places like Paris, London and Rome on the list - I'd not take a day out of those places to explore The Rhine properly - so I think a day on the boat -meaning you can get on and off at any dock -including the one for Marksburg Castle, the only authentically intact medieval castle on this part of Rhine-the rest being leveled during numerous wars that have ravaged this militarily vital area.

Thus I did not mention Cochem!

Neecey

Wow, you guys have an amazing wealth of knowledge. And I have so much more to consider. Time for more research. I love the idea of variety on any vacation, esp for the kids, and you are right to encourage me to involve them. Actually we homeschool and I'm really looking forward to incorporating as much history and culture as we can--it seems like endless learning potential.

I think you may have implied this, but is London, Paris, and Rome on a 2 week trip too much? Is it generally best to opt for some down time in a more rural setting? I don't want to be too rushed--there seems to be so much to see, but those are my top 3.

Thank you again!

northie

You have 14 days and if you do 3 cities that's 2 days to travel in between so you have 12 days on ground .And the first day you arrive in Europe is not usually a full I would choose 2 - ask the children to vote that's what we always did after reading and discussion.

bilboburgler

You could do just London, Paris, Rome, but Italy has so much to do it is worth its own trip (in fact I prefer so much of Italy to Rome it feels wrong, even if a "Visit to Europe" might consider it mandatory).

If you can only ever do one trip in a life time to Europe then you might think this way, but cities are not countries.

dwdvagamundo

Neecey--

In my view, to try to appreciate three of the greatest cities in the world in one two week vacation is unwise, and you'd be better off following your plan "B" to do either northern Europe or Italy on this trip.

In addition, I do think that, as you say, it is generally best to opt for some down time in a rural setting. Whether England, France, Italy or Germany, smaller cities, villages and the countryside are, in my view, the best part of Europe (no matter how great the cities are) and you'd be shortchanging yourself and your daughters by not spending at least some time outside of the metropolises.

Dogeared

Everyone has their own preferences and priorities. What anyone else's are really doesn't matter. It is up to you to decide what your's are as far as where you decide to visit.

There are however some general principles people could offer you advice on. One of those is to consider what is best use of time.

Every time you move, you more or less lose a day that could have been spent IN a place seeing and doing things. Even a relatively short move in terms of actual travel time, still takes up a lot more time overall in making the move.

Most people say something like, 'we want to get as much as possible out of our time'. But they often confuse the word 'much' with the word 'many'. Quantity is not quality and 'much' is not synonymous with 'many'. The way to get as much as possible out of your time is to spend your time IN places, not moving between places.

The best way to see what you are really considering doing, is to lay out your time on a calendar or list it with all days on which you will include travel, shown separately.

So for example:
Day 1 Arrival in A
Day 2 In A
Day 3 In A
Day 4 In A
Day 5 move to B
Day 6 In B
......
......
Day 14 Depart from X

You can then figure out what percentage of your time you are going to lose to travel. If someone spent 14 days in which they visited 4 places in total, that would mean they would have 5 travel days. An arrival day a departure day and 3 days on which they moved. That 5 out of 14 days is 35% of their total time. Is that best uses of 35% of your time? Drop off one place and you reduce travel days to 28%.

I personally prefer to never have more than 25% of my time in travel days including arrival/departure. Move less, see and do more.

Another general factor to consider is how much time will a given place hold your interest for. I try never to stop anywhere for less than 3 full days. With a travel day between, you can see that results in 25% travel time. But most people will also say that some places like perhaps London, Paris, Rome, really need more than 3 full days each. So how much time should you allow for any given place?

No one can answer that question for you. Where one person was happy to leave after 1 day, someone else was reluctant to leave after a week. The only way to avoid spending too much or too little time anywhere is to not plan beyond getting to A. But that approach is not one that many people are willing to take. It requires a truly flexible traveller to do so.

Neecey

Thank you all again--your suggestions seem wise and what I needed to hear! This community is a confidence booster! I'm leaning toward London and Paris for this first trip (partly for the comfort of an English speaking country--ease ourselves into the culture shock), and possibly a break in a rural setting. Lots more research to do--I will try to plan it out with the travel time in mind--that's hard to do--everything looks faster than it is in reality.

This may be too broad of a question, or need a separate post--it's regarding figuring out how to add a rural break. That part is very vague to me. So far, as I've poured over the guidebooks, I've gotten long lists of must-see's in the cities. Maybe I've just glossed over the smaller towns because they didn't look "important enough." But realistically, we're all going to be ready for a break from the action. But I don't think I know how to relax on vacation outside of a beach or park or campground (I don't want to mess with camping there). I guess I'm asking for suggestions for countryside breaks (overnights) not too far from Paris or London that will be kid-friendly enough that they aren't staring at screens all day. Or suggestions for reading? I'm just afraid of picking some obscure farmhouse in the middle of nowhere and wasting precious time.

Mimar

What you want is a short stay in an interesting small town, preferably on a train line not too far from London or Paris. Lots of these come to mind. In England, I think of Salisbury (cathedral, bus to Stonehenge, walking paths) and Winchester (cathedral, the Round Table, walking paths). I'm sure there are many other options. (Which will spring to mind just as soon as I submit this.)

Here's a link to a long list of day trips from Paris, several of which could be expanded to a couple days. Look for FrenchMystiqueTours post: http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...omment-8471746

Neecey

Awesome--I'll check it out. Thanks!

Hey, bilboburgler, I'm still thinking about the Rhine. You said you don't like Bavaria. Can you elaborate? I picture Munich as being all the old german charm with cuckoo clocks and leiderhosen.

And several of you have given me specific tips on Germany which I am not even knowledgeable enough to understand--but I'm working on it. Would you all recommend the Rhine (the cruise, the castles) and Munich for kids or do you think it would get old fast? I personally think it looks wonderful, but would most kids see this as too repetitious? Is there enough variety?

northie

Necey - I love Munich but didn't see any cuckoo clocks or lederhosen anywhere .

I though you'd decided on London and Paris - good suggestions for places to go outside London.

Sassafrass

One of my favorite places outside of London is Bath. Have you or your older daughter read any Jane Austen books or seen the movies, Pride and Prejudice, etc.? If so, Bath would be very interesting. It has an Austen museum and costume displays.

The city is very small, easy to walk all over and very beautiful with Georgian architecture. There is a lovely river and park for strolling. The Abby is gorgeous. There are many things mentioned in Jane's stories.

The Roman Baths are amazing. Just think about the Romans being there and building such a spa town.

Another interesting bit is that at one time, Bath was a center of English society, with fancy balls and social intrigue second only to London. That made it easy to dismiss America as a backwoods place with no future.

Nearby are the Cotswold villages.