braines

I'm planning a graduation trip for my daughter in 2017. My wife and I visited Austria, Germany and Switzerland several years ago with Go Ahead vacations and enjoyed Vienna, Salzburg, Munich, Lucerne, and Heidelberg. We loved the Alps. I'd like to introduce my daughter and son to European culture, architechture and history. While we enjoy art and museums we'd rather be outside enjoying culture, arcitecture and natural beauty. We'll be using American Airlines miles for our flights and will be traveling for 3 weeks. Here is my tentative itinerary: flying in to Pariis - Paris 3 nights (early a.m. arrival on day 1), fly to Rome 3 nights (mid morning arrival), fly to Vienna 3 nights, rent a car and drive Vienna-Hallstat-Salzburg (1 day), Salzburg 3 nights, Salzburg to Munich via the German Alpine Road (leaving GAR at Hausham), 2 nights in Munich, Munich to Linderhof and Neuschwanstein and overnight in Garmisch, Garmisch to Lucerne 3 nights with day trips to Pilatus and Lauterbrunnen, Lucerne to Heidelberg via rail - 2 nights in Heidelberg, Frankfurt - home. I know this seems like a lot in 3 weeks but I think its manageable based on previous vacation travel we've done. Does anyone have any other recommendations that might fit our architecture, history and culture preferences? I'd love to find a way to get to Prague but I'm struggling with getting there and getting our fill of the Alps. I'd also be open to an itinerary north through Italy via maybe Pisa and Lake Como. And if train travel is recommended for a particular segment, please let me know. Thanks for any suggestions.

janisj

I personally think this isn't very good itinerary.

Very VERY rushed.

you will have 2 jet lagged days in Paris, 2 days in Rome, 2 days in Vienna, and so on. Why so much dashing about? I'd skip Paris altogether unless you can give it 4 days/5 nights minimum. Your first city will be the hardest because of the jet lag/logistics - and w/ a family things do take longer.

sandralist

Have you asked your daughter what she would like to do since this is her present? That would be a lot of Alps for some teenage girls I know and not enough Italy or Paris. But there certainly are other girls who would love all that mountain scenery and just as soon skip a high-speed sightseeing in Rome and Munich.

mama_mia

I have done 3 night stays over shorter trips, but over 3 weeks, I think all that moving around will catch up with you. My teenaged sons enjoyed cities and hiking. Sitting in a car passing beautiful scenery--not so much.

You have a good amount of time to enlist your children's aid in determining what they would like to see--from school or movies, they probably have some thoughts.

I would add days to places everyone is excited about and reduce the number of locations.

nytraveler

Agree that this is too rushed. For some reason you have given a lot of time to Salzburg - but you are definitely giving short shrift (2 days plus a little jet lag) to Paris and Rome (just 2.5 days). Not only can you not add more destinations I would definitely simplify - since IMHO you have way too much time sitting on trains and in airports versus actually doing/seeing things.

However, if that is the type of trip you really want - more power to you. But I would review with your family. Have them make a list of the sights they want to see in each city - and figure out how many of them you can get to in the limited time you have in each place.

braines

Thanks for the advice. I agree that we will suffer some jet lag in Paris so I should add more time there. That's one place she definitely wants to see. And we can reduce time in Salzburg as well as remove Munich. She's interested in being a wildlife biologist so she's good with the Alps. I also should have mentioned that we don't plan to try to cram every city site into our trip.

Sassafrass

Your trip is a couple of years off, so you still have lots of time to think and plan, and read guide books, etc.

Most of the cities you visited on your first trip, while lovely, are very small compared with Paris and Rome and have only a minuscule number of riches (architecture, art, etc.) to see compared with them. Example: a day in Heidelberg lets you get a good feel and taste for the city. To do the same in Rome would require a week. A night or even just an afternoon seems enough in Heidelberg compared with several days in Paris.

It looks as if you are going to see two of King Ludwig's castles. Linderhof is pretty and nice to see if you will be in the area, Neuschwanstein was made famous by Disney so a lot of people go there, but with your itinerary, you will be going right by another of his palaces that is, IMHO, on a par with Versailles. That is Herrenchiemsee, my personal favorite of the three. On Germany's list of their 100 top sights, it comes in at 39. Google "images of Herrenchiemsee" and you will see why.

Herrenchiemsee is on an island on lake Chiemsee less than a hour NW of Salzburg (about an hour SE of Munich). You take a boat to get out to the island. From Spring to Fall, they have concerts in the evenings in the Hall of Mirrors, all by candlelight. Attending one is really memorable - a highlight of three years of living in Germany. It becomes an experience, not just a "see the sight" kind of thing.

Another thing you might enjoy. If you can time your dates, the "Burning of the Castle" is re-enacted several times each summer in Heidelberg. It will be crowded, etc., but absolutely worth it. The fireworks are beautiful. Standing on one of bridges over the river and looking up at the castle ruins all alight with flames and sparkles - spectacular!

Have fun playing with your itinerary.

KTtravel

I am so glad you are rethinking your itinerary as your first one made my head spin. I agree that you will need more time in Paris and Rome.
Happy planning!

msteacher

If you are really big hikers, instead of day tripping to Lauterbrunnen, I suggest staying there for several nights. Better yet, stay in one of the smaller towns above Lauterbrunnen, such as Wengen or Murren. There is glorious hiking to be done in the area, and there is nothing like sleeping in and among the Alps (rather than viewing them from below or afar). As others have said, you have plenty of time so start googling and reading guidebooks to find the specific locations that appeal most to your family's interests. Happy travels!

nytraveler

Agree that Herrenchiemsee is much better than Neuschwanstein - unless you must see the origianal of Disney's princess castle. I even like Linderhof better - esp the grotto.

We actually had a very interesting experience at Linderhof, waiting for a few minutes for the english language tour. We encountered a bunch of English tourists - apparently from a bus tour - and they listened to us discussing where we were going next. They kept asking where the rest of our group was - and couldn't seem to get that we were just in the middle of a road trip (from Salzburg to Vienna at that point). We were amazed that they were with a group and they couldn't get we were traveling independently. Finally one woman asked if we wouldn't find a bus better than all those trains - and seemed amazed when we said - no we had just rented a car. It was surprising since I had assumed the average middle-aged English person would have traveled all over europe and would just hop in their car and go. And they were amazed that we traveled that way - and were staying at the Vienna Hilton (free on points) and that we must be millionaires (SO far from the truth).

I guess there are a lot of differences in how average middle class people live.

braines

My wife and I visited Linderhof and Neuschwanstein on our previous trip. I agree Linderhof is better. Thanks for the recommendation on Herrenchiemsee. @nytraveler and @ sassafrass do you have other castle recommendations? I'm also a big fan of Vienna and enjoyed Schonbrunn. @nytraveler, you describe somthing that interests us - just getting in a car and going from place to place. @msteacher, we could definitely take a few days to enjoy the Lauterbrunnen area. I've also thought about visiting Interlaken. Anyone have thoughts on Interlaken?

I've read a lot of posts here and it seems if anyone only spends a day or two in one "important" city, they get persecuted for not taking enough time. I know Rome is a place you could easily spend 2-3 weeks. Thats not our goal. We don't have to spend every hour we're there checking sites off of some "must do" list. If we end up wandering around and only see the Colliseaum and Pantheon thats fine. Hopefully, it won't be our last trip there. The same for Paris. To be honest, the smaller places fit our style better. I know this is sacrilege to some but we don't have to immerse ourselves in a city for days to enjoy it. Our itinerary seems rushed to many but it's only rushed if you feel like you have to do a million things to "get your moneys worth" in a particular place. As long as we have fun and see a few sites, we're usually pretty happy. We've been places and had people ask us after we return, "did you see this, did you see that" and the answer was "no" and they couldn't believe it. What I'm saying is,if we go to Paris and don't go to the Louvre or go to Rome and don't make a trip to the Vatican it's not going to ruin our vacation. I guess I should have said that up front.

msteacher

As far as Interlaken goes, it is a good choice if you are looking for a central base from which to do day trips. It has easy train connections to places like Bern, Lucerne, or Lauterbrunnen. It is situated on two beautiful lakes, so nice for boat rides. It is a larger town that caters to tourists, so plenty of shopping available. There is a pretty view of the mountains in the distance. Good choice if you don't mind traveling about an hour each morning and afternoon to explore a different place, or if you will have a car.

If your main goal, however, is hiking and/or experiencing nature, a smaller town in the Bernese Oberland would be a better choice. We personally enjoyed Wengen very much because it is perched high in the mountains with beautiful 360 degree views, and a variety of hikes at our doorstep. It is a car-free village so very quiet and only accessible by train. Murren is quite similar, and there are some other towns too.

So think about what would be best for your familiy's needs and interests. And thanks for your explanation of your travel style. Totally get it. I would just encourage you to think about how much time you will be spending in transit compared to actually enjoying your locations. Keep in mind that even for a short flight, you will lose at least half a day to travel because you need to get from hotel to airport, arrive at airport 2 hours early, get from airport to new hotel, and get your bearings in a new city. So you'll just need to decide if the amount of time spent traveling VS. the amount of time enjoying each location is worth it for you and your family. All part of the fun of planning. Enjoy!

msteacher

I should have added that if you stay in Wengen, Murren, or Lauterbrunnen, you will pass through Interlaken. So if you just want to see Interlaken, but not stay there, it is easily done from anywhere in the BO.

sandralist

braines,

I've been in Interlaken and it felt like a tourist transit depot. There are nicer towns around that have prettier scenery and more of a village feel.

I am a big fan of short stays in big cities but your original post was framed in terms of (a) a trip for your daughter who has never been to Europe and (b) wanting to give your children an introductions to the history, culture and architecture of Europe. That is part of the reason people questioned your itinerary. Moving at such a fast pace and choosing on the basis of what you liked in the past didn't seem likely to produce the result you seemed to be saying you wanted.

You have since added more information, but I would still suggest trying to make your trip more geographically compact and taking fewer plane flights. For instance, Instead of flying to Rome to go to the Pantheon and the Colisseum, consider going to Verona and seeing the Roman arena there and other marvelous sights. Since you say you like smaller cities, Verona is an architectural gem with lots of variety.

Again, you know your family best but even a lot of adults don't particularly like being taken on a guided tour of other people's favorite sights in Europe (or anywhere). I have noticed a lot of young people get weary fairly quickly of their parent's saying: "Look at this! Look at that!!" Part of what many people love about travel is the feeling they are discovering and exploring for themselves, which is one reason why a lot of people have stopped taking guided tours. The guided tour isn't necessarily more fun if it is your parents doing the pointing and guiding rather than a tour guide.

Gretchen

We did a 3 week graduation trip with our children many years ago==before the internet allowed you such great planning tools.
We landed in Luxembourg with Icelandic. Rented a car and drove through the Moselle and to Munich. Then to Switzerland, Zurich and Zermatt for a couple of days.
Train to Venice, then Florence, and Rome. Train north to Pisa and Milan and on to the south of France and rented a car again and drove to Paris.
We took some overnight trains somewhere in there.
I think your trip looks like "the highlights of Europe" tour and you seem to be patterning it after YOUR tour, which you enjoyed, but there is more to see.
You sort of downplay museums, and maybe cathedrals, but it was interesting to see our jock sons LOVE them and lead the way.
Not sure what being a wildlife biologist has to do with all that time in Switzerland!!
Our kids were Latin language folk, so we saw many of the Roman ruins--not just in Rome but in southern France--it made a bit of a theme.
I'd suggest mixing in some driving, and rethinking the time in Salzburg and the castles.
We actually spent the night in a castle in Germany.
And definitely more time in Paris--it wouldn't be inconceivable to do it round trip--beginning and ending there