Itinerary Help- April 2010

Do not even think about countries--think contigious geographic regions. Italy takes 6 weeks just to start--Germany at least a month. You will do well to plan just those 2 countries--that will fill 3 weeks real fast.

sorry - 3 weeks is barely long enough to visit 6 cities in the SAME country let alone 6 countries spread over half of Europe.

What do you actually want to see? Munich, Rome, Amsterdam, London, Edinburgh and Paris and NOTHING else in any of those countries? If so it would (barely) be doable but all that extra travel will add hundreds or thousands to your trip's cost.

If, on the other hand, you want to see Edinburgh and some of the Scottish Highlands; London and Bath and some English countryside; Munich and the Rhine; Rome/Venice/Florence; Paris/Normandy/the Loire; and Amsterdam -- No way, no how.

Pick at most three countries and then maybe pick a couple of destinations w/i each.

Or - back to the drawing board altogether and pick ONE country.

Why did you leave out Spain and Portugal?

Honestly, listen to the advice given to you above. Too many countries in too little time.

3 weeks might sound like alot, but travel time between places really eats into the time you have available for enjoying yourself.

I hope you have a private plane.

Seriously, you need to get a map, get a few guidebooks, start learning about how long it takes and how much it costs to move from one place to another, and narrow this down enormously, OR plan to take a 6-week vacation.

If you want to visit 6 countries you need at least 6 weeks but 12 would be better.

To really see anyplace in more than the most cursory way you need to allow 5 nights for a larger city (not country, but city - as in Paris or Rome) and 3 nights for smaller cities (like Venice or Florence).

First time travelers to europe when asked their biggest mistake said - trying to see way to much in too little time far more than any other response.

I think you need to do some research on:

1) What places you really must see
2) How much time you have realistically
3) What your budget is (you can visit europe at a variety of price points - but it will definitely cost more than the US)

Don;t know if you plan to travel between places by car, train or planes - but do realize that moving from one city to another takes the best part of a day.

I've been to europe more than 70 times between vacations and business, including a good number of 3 weeks road trips. One way to spend the time would be London, parts of England and ending up n Edinburgh. Or you could start in Rome, move on to Florence, Lucerne, Strasbourg and Paris. (But that worked for us only because we had been to Paris twice before and just saw a few new things in 2 days.)

Get a map, a calendar and a calculator (and check out train schedules on the bahn.de web site) and start from the beginning.

If you want to experience anything other than being tired and disoriented, unpacking and repacking, and running for trains or planes with multiple backgrounds you will need a lot more than "a little longer" to pack in 6 countries. And don't forget the added cost of getting between all those paces in terms of both money and time.
You are far enough out to spend some time planning (which I guess is why you came to Fodorville in the first place.) It's kinda like the old joke about packing - put in everything you want to take and them remove half.
If you are good with it use a spreadsheet or a table in a word processing program, otherwise use pencil and paper. Pencil in on a calendar how you would be spending your time/where you would be each day. Don't forget that in addition to actual duration of travel between places you need to to account for the time required for getting to and from train station/airports, and that during those times you will be schlepping your luggage. What's left is the time you will have to actually enjoy wherever you are. Night trains can help a little if the trip is long enough, but sleeping in train seats is not very comfortable and the added cost of sleepers - even couchettes - approaches or even exceeds what you would pay for a budget hotel, and you don't have a shower or decent toilet.
OK, so now that I've done the ultra-negative old fart wet blanket thing, DO decide which places are at the top of your list and work from there. Look at a map to see how you can most logically arrange your itinerary. Decide if you want to be in or avoid a certain place on a certain day (like if a particular attraction is closed that day of the week.) Check online to see what sort of schedules and transit time you are looking at between places. Enter on your calendar the must-do places, then in between fill in the wanna-do places. With all that on your planning calendar see how much white space is left, then adjust to make sure you have enough time to really enjoy each place.

Another option might be the base city approach, where you stay in one place and do day trips in the region. There's a great book entitled "Europe by Eurail that explains he concept and provides suggested itineraries. Check amazon.com or other places for it. Note that depending on your itinerary a rail pass may or may not be your best buy.

For air travel to/from Europe, unless you plan your trip as a circle starting and ending in the same city, look for open-jaw ticket where you fly into one city and out of another. That's not the same as two one-way tickets, which is much more expensive.

And above all, have fun!

Erika,
You are new to Fodors – welcome. Please don’t be put off by the somewhat terse responses to your question. People are more kind than they appear in text!

In your three weeks, I’d suggest Italy, and maybe Germany. Italy is a very “user friendly” place to visit, and if you spent three weeks there, you would see it in more depth than many. Six countries in three or four weeks will be a bit like watching your favourite movie in fast forward mode – tantalising, and you’d be wanting to hit the “Pause” button.

You could visit the “Big Three”, Venice, Florence and Rome, and spend a few days in the countryside as well.

Two years ago, we visited Italy in late December / January, travelling everywhere by train. It was like this:
Venice – 6 nights
Verona – 2 nights
Como – 2 nights
Florence – 5 nights (day trip to Sienna by train)
Assisi – 3 nights (day trip to Spolletto by local train)
Rome – 4 nights.

I think I’ve lost a night or two somewhere – I think it was 23 nights.

In retrospect, Como was a mistake – it was a bit dead and flat in January, but would be alive in April.

Six months ago, we spent about 9 weeks in Venice and loved it. Venice really rewards the patient visitor. I wrote a sort of guide book for Venice – it’s here:
http://www.fodors.com/community/europe/venice-trip-report-warning-im-most-verbose.cfm

I’m having great fun with a couple of other posters, who are pointing out the errors in my report – for just about anything in Venice, there are a handful of explanations.

oh come ON peter. "Terse"? "People are more kind than they appear in text!"

The posts are absolutely FULL of useful/practical/helpful suggestions. People were more than kind IMO (and none were rude) . . . .

Hi er,

As you have probably noticed, the consensus is that you are trying to do too much.

In 3 weeks, you can visit the UK or 3 of the other countries. You can't do it all.

If you really dont mind moving around at speed for the whole 3 weeks and are happy just to see the "top 10" type places in each city you still could not really do all you list. I assume you are able to get an open jaw flight.

You have say 20 days tops

Without knowing what is most important to you I would suggest
leaving out Scotland and the Netherlands this time unless there is a special reason you want to see them.

Fly into London
London 5 days (1-2 day outside of London in the countryside)
Paris 4 days
Munich 2 days
2 days Venice
4 days Florence (and surrounds)
3 days Rome
Fly home from Rome

OR

Drop Italy (not that I would) and try

London
Amsterdam
Germany
Paris

Or drop London

Amsterdam
Paris
Munich
Italy

Thankfully I have 6 weeks for my next trip

As you can see from the above responses, a lot of people are really "formula" tourists who tend to think in blocks. You can of course visit 6 European countries in 3 weeks and have a great time -- or you can have a miserable time if you aren't that kind of traveler. (Some people posting in this thread, if you read their trip reports, manage to plan and have lousy trips by their own admission -- so the advice you get on the internet is worth what you pay for it!)

You might post more about yourselves and why you are attracted to those particular destinations, Italy and Germany in particular, and why you want to visit more than one country. Some of the places you want to go are bunched together or have convenient transportation links. Italy jumps out as a stretch -- although it's in your top two.

I will say that it is not a good idea to ask other people on the Internet what they consider to be the most important things to see anywhere. It's easier to just look at a comprehensive guide book like Fodor's, which pre-selects the standard sights and gives the logistics for getting to them. Better to use the internet to describe your personal desires and pet peeves, and then get help tailoring a trip that will work for you personally.

Zeppole is right, even if he does tell you not to accept his advice — or mine. (I know, the reference was to advice on itinerary, not planning.) If you are young, as I assume you are, you will get as much out of the journey as you will from your destinations. Six countries in three weeks would probably not be a problem for you if you choose countries that border one another. Agreeing, again, with Zeppole, once you start calculating the times and costs involved in getting to various destinations, you should be able to come up with an itinerary that you will like and find affordable.