London Paris Rome or London Paris Amsterdam
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:31 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Paris Rome or London Paris Amsterdam
So I've been thinking about traveling to Europe for the first time. I've already posted on this forum and several people have suggested that I do a London Paris Amsterdam tour. However I kinda want to go to Rome as I would love to visit Italy, but at the same time I feel like I should reserve Rome for maybe an Italy trip. Any thoughts on which city is more interesting?
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:36 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both are interesting. What time of year are you planning for your trip? If it is during July or August, I would pick Amsterdam over Rome as Rome can be awfully hot during the summer months.
If the trip is not during those times I would probably pick Rome over Amsterdam.
If the trip is not during those times I would probably pick Rome over Amsterdam.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:42 PM
#4
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure you can go to Rome if you want to. After all, you're not likely to exhaust all its many sights in one visit. You can always go back.
Such an itinerary lends itself to an open jaws or multi-city plane ticket, into London, home from Rome. Such a ticket should cost about the same as round-trip and save you the time and money lost backtracking.
Ideally you'd take the Eurostar train from London to Paris and fly from there to Rome. Get the Eurostar tickets early for a considerable saving. And there are some cheap flights out of Paris Orly, which is smaller and closer to Paris than CDG, a notorious bear of an airport.
Such an itinerary lends itself to an open jaws or multi-city plane ticket, into London, home from Rome. Such a ticket should cost about the same as round-trip and save you the time and money lost backtracking.
Ideally you'd take the Eurostar train from London to Paris and fly from there to Rome. Get the Eurostar tickets early for a considerable saving. And there are some cheap flights out of Paris Orly, which is smaller and closer to Paris than CDG, a notorious bear of an airport.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:43 PM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long do you have for this trip? You can see a lot of Amsterdam in 2 full days (3 nights) but for Rome I would want at east 5 nights (4 days).
But your total days matter - since London and Paris deserve at least as much time in Rome.
Agree I would not do Rome in summer since it is very hot and humid, while Amsterdam has more moderate weather.
But your total days matter - since London and Paris deserve at least as much time in Rome.
Agree I would not do Rome in summer since it is very hot and humid, while Amsterdam has more moderate weather.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:52 PM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three weeks is more than enough for London, Paris, and Rome. That would be too much for me - I'd add another city or two, but that's my style. I didn't need four nights in Rome, which I didn't like that much (but I'd suggest at least three nights). Some people would spend a week in each city.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:53 PM
#8
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 weeks would be outstanding for a first time visit to London, Paris and Rome. Amsterdam is pretty enough but in terms of interesting things to see, history, food and wine, etc. it can't hold a candle to Rome. Choose Rome and just promise yourself that you'll go back and fill in things you didn't see on your future trip to Italy.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:58 PM
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are saying that 3 weeks is more than enough for these 3 cities. If that is so, is it possible to add Istanbul or Berlin to that trip? Or would that be too many cities to handle, as I would like to have a lot of time in the cities to sightsee and also see the countryside.
Jul 13th, 2016, 04:58 PM
#10
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also depends on how much time you have.
Rome is bigger and definitely needs more time. Rome pairs better with other places in Italy, so saving it for a trip to Italy makes sense. OTOH, there are many interesting places to visit near Amsterdam, so it would be nice to have time to visit those when you go to Amsterdam.
Time of year is also a factor.
Sometimes, there will be a difference in flight costs between different cities at the same time of year. You do have to balance that by adding in the costs of getting to the city you really want to see. It is silly to save a couple of hundred dollars by flying into a country/city in which you have no interest, then wasting a day and more money to get to the place you want to be.
The same is true for RT tickets. Even if it costs a bit more, you are usually better off buying multi-destination or multi-city tickets (not two one-way), flying into one city and out of another.
It might be cheaper during off season, but does it give you the trip you want? Many people enjoy winter, the sparkle of lights at night and being bundled up. I do not. In places like most of Spain, the Amalfi Coast and Paris, I like being outside at cafes on warm Summer nights. I would take a shorter trip and save money on hotels in order to have that. Only you know what would work for you.
Which city is calling to you most?
Rome is bigger and definitely needs more time. Rome pairs better with other places in Italy, so saving it for a trip to Italy makes sense. OTOH, there are many interesting places to visit near Amsterdam, so it would be nice to have time to visit those when you go to Amsterdam.
Time of year is also a factor.
Sometimes, there will be a difference in flight costs between different cities at the same time of year. You do have to balance that by adding in the costs of getting to the city you really want to see. It is silly to save a couple of hundred dollars by flying into a country/city in which you have no interest, then wasting a day and more money to get to the place you want to be.
The same is true for RT tickets. Even if it costs a bit more, you are usually better off buying multi-destination or multi-city tickets (not two one-way), flying into one city and out of another.
It might be cheaper during off season, but does it give you the trip you want? Many people enjoy winter, the sparkle of lights at night and being bundled up. I do not. In places like most of Spain, the Amalfi Coast and Paris, I like being outside at cafes on warm Summer nights. I would take a shorter trip and save money on hotels in order to have that. Only you know what would work for you.
Which city is calling to you most?
Jul 13th, 2016, 05:06 PM
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The city I am most interested is a pretty hard one to pinpoint. London, Paris, and Rome all seem like amazing cities, and other cities like Berlin, Venice, and Istanbul really interest me too.
Also, I was thinking about taking a train from Paris to Rome to see the countryside as it passes by. However I feel like this would consume too much time. What do you guys think?
Also, I was thinking about taking a train from Paris to Rome to see the countryside as it passes by. However I feel like this would consume too much time. What do you guys think?
Jul 13th, 2016, 05:06 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal preference is not to have a trip where I am flying a lot between different cities in different countries. I like smaller, self-contained itineraries that are connected by train (or bus). I find train travel relaxing and fun, especially in Europe, while I find flying and airports stressful.
So, I would never combine London, Paris, Rome, and Istanbul or Berlin. But that's just my preference.
So, I would never combine London, Paris, Rome, and Istanbul or Berlin. But that's just my preference.
Jul 13th, 2016, 05:12 PM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really have three weeks, taking out travel time to get there, you have 19-20 days. No to Istanbul! Save it for a trip to Turkey.
You could still keep Amsterdam, or do an Italy trip.
London, 4 nights (3 days)
Travel to Paris, about 1/2 day total travel time
Paris, 5 nights (4 days)
Fly to Venice, 1/2 day travel time
Venice, 3 nights (2 days)
Train to Rome, 5 nights (4 days)
That leaves 3 or 4 days to add Florence, Amsterdam or Berlin, or more time to London, Paris, etc. You could skip Venice and put that time someplace else.
Where you go must be your choice. Be sure to add in travel time, and figure out how much time you need to see what you want in each place.
You could still keep Amsterdam, or do an Italy trip.
London, 4 nights (3 days)
Travel to Paris, about 1/2 day total travel time
Paris, 5 nights (4 days)
Fly to Venice, 1/2 day travel time
Venice, 3 nights (2 days)
Train to Rome, 5 nights (4 days)
That leaves 3 or 4 days to add Florence, Amsterdam or Berlin, or more time to London, Paris, etc. You could skip Venice and put that time someplace else.
Where you go must be your choice. Be sure to add in travel time, and figure out how much time you need to see what you want in each place.
Jul 13th, 2016, 05:15 PM
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a pretty good travel plan Sassafrass, I never though of flying from Paris to Venice, it allows me to get from one city to another while also allowing me to see the Italian countryside from a train. It also might give me time to spend a day in Florence and Pisa.
Jul 13th, 2016, 05:36 PM
#15
All cities are not equal.
Is a week long enough for London? Well that is more time than most people get. You could see a fair number of the major sites in a week . . . but FAR from all of them. And there are many day trips doable from London (like Oxford, or Bath, or Salisbury/Stonehenge, or Windsor, or Hampton Court Palace, or Greenwich, or Canterbury or 100 others) In fact you could spend your entire three weeks there and still not see even all of the major sites.
But that isn't practical for most people.
Almost the same for Paris -- it isn't nearly as large as London but there is so much to see/d that a full week or two and you won't have seen/done it all.
Same-o for Rome
soooooo what to do -- If London Paris and Rome are your personal big three spend 7 to 9 days in London, 6 or 7 days in Paris, the same for Rome. You will lose half a day moving each time. Plus the first day or two you may be quite jetlagged. That's why I'd add a couple of extra days to London.
Is a week long enough for London? Well that is more time than most people get. You could see a fair number of the major sites in a week . . . but FAR from all of them. And there are many day trips doable from London (like Oxford, or Bath, or Salisbury/Stonehenge, or Windsor, or Hampton Court Palace, or Greenwich, or Canterbury or 100 others) In fact you could spend your entire three weeks there and still not see even all of the major sites.
But that isn't practical for most people.
Almost the same for Paris -- it isn't nearly as large as London but there is so much to see/d that a full week or two and you won't have seen/done it all.
Same-o for Rome
soooooo what to do -- If London Paris and Rome are your personal big three spend 7 to 9 days in London, 6 or 7 days in Paris, the same for Rome. You will lose half a day moving each time. Plus the first day or two you may be quite jetlagged. That's why I'd add a couple of extra days to London.
Jul 13th, 2016, 07:28 PM
#17
then add more time to London.
Stonehenge really isn't 'along the way' to Bath -- unless you take a commercial coach tour. To get to Stonehenge on your own you would take a train to Salisbury, then local tour bus or a taxi to the stones, then back to Salisbury and train to Bath, then train to Bath. A very full day since just the train journeys would take 4 hours.
Stonehenge really isn't 'along the way' to Bath -- unless you take a commercial coach tour. To get to Stonehenge on your own you would take a train to Salisbury, then local tour bus or a taxi to the stones, then back to Salisbury and train to Bath, then train to Bath. A very full day since just the train journeys would take 4 hours.
Jul 14th, 2016, 06:01 AM
#19
>>I was actually thinking of renting a car and stopping at Stonehenge on the way to Bath<<
That will be a very long day trip. Say you collect you car out at LHR (the easiest place) LHR > Stonehenge > Bath > LHR is a 5 hour drive. The Stonehenge visit plus even just 4 hours in Bath would mean about a 13 hour day (including getting to/from LHR)
If you rent from central London it will add an hour or more to the drive time but cut the transit out/back to LHR so maybe a 12 hour day.
That will be a very long day trip. Say you collect you car out at LHR (the easiest place) LHR > Stonehenge > Bath > LHR is a 5 hour drive. The Stonehenge visit plus even just 4 hours in Bath would mean about a 13 hour day (including getting to/from LHR)
If you rent from central London it will add an hour or more to the drive time but cut the transit out/back to LHR so maybe a 12 hour day.
