sbmarti2

Hey Everyone, I've decided to take a trip to Europe with one other person, and we're at the beginning of our preparation. We plan to visit the following places, although this is a preliminary list, I hope to visit them all.

Start in London, and go to Paris afterwards. Explore some of the french countryside afterwards, then go to Zurich. Go to Milan after that, then either Florence or Venice, then finish off in Rome.

Any input to good hotels, things to see or general tips would be appreciated. We plan to go in mid-April to early May.

bobthenavigator

My advice is to spend half of your time outside of big cities. With 3 weeks, and that routing, I would include Provence, the Italy lakes, and Tuscany.

nytraveler

Your itinerary sounds like one of those If It's Tuesday this Must be Belgium tour groups. You're trying to cover way too much territory in a limited amount of time.

I think you need to do some research on exactly what things you want to do/see the most - since you can;t possibly see it all. (Your trip is the equivalent of 3 weeks to do Boston, NYC, DC, Fla, Las Vegas, California and several national parks).

You must realize that each time you change cities/hotels you lose most of a day - so of the 21 days (I'm assumig you don;t count arrival and departure days) actually on the ground you would spend 6/7 just getting from one place to another - so only 14 days really doing anything.

Everyone has different styles of travel - and some people like to hit a city, see 2 things and rush on to the next - while others like to see several major sites and then have ome time to absorb the local atmosphere (cafe sitting or spending a little time in a pub).

If you want to do the former - could plan a trip like this - but be preapred for constant rushing and - after the trip - forgetting what was where. For the latter type of travel you need at least 5/6 days in London (allows for one or two half day trips to Windor or Greenwich) and 5 days in Paris (allowing part of a day for Versailles). And to see the French countryside could take months - which part did you have in mind? Similarly Rome requires at least 4 days to scratch the surface.

As for Zurich - not sure why you picked it. It's a slightly drab city with a few museums - but is not typically Swiss - if you're thinking of Heidi, snowy mountains and cow bells.

I would suggest making a day by day list, including each city, leaving days for travle in between - and see how few sights you wil actually be able to get to.

And - when people on the board were polled as to the biggest mistake they made on their first trip to europe - the general agreement was trying to stuff too many places in too little time - and regretting all they couldn't see/do.

(For our first adult road trip to europe - also 3 weeks - we did Rome to Paris, stopping in Florence, Innsbruck, Munich, and Black Forest on the way. BUT - we had alredy spent a week in Paris before - so did only 2 days at the end of the trip. And we really regreted not having more time in Rome and much more time to explore Tuscany - which we did on subsequent trips.)

suze

I would elminate a few of those cities. For me that would be London for sure, and probably Zurich, and Milan. Keep Paris, Venice, Florence, Rome, in that order is my suggestion. I don't mind an "all cities" trip because I enjoy them myself, and you can easily get around with public transportation where the countryside often requires a car rental.

sbmarti2

wow, thanks for the detailled response. I feared that we were trying to fit too much stuff in, but I suppose I don't know enough to know. Zurich is just a thought, and if we have to drop something its first. Next to that it is Venice or Florence. London will only be 3-4 days, same with Paris. The French countryside will not be for very long, just enough to go to a Vineyard and stay at a bed and breakfast. Milan will probably be for two days, just to do some shopping and etc. Rome is the big attraction for me, as I am a huge ancient history buff and I want to see as much stuff as possible. Probably 4-5 days there if time allows. However, I agree, Zurich probably won't happen.

lucy_d

Ditto what suze said. Paris, Venice, Florence and Rome.

L84SKY

What are you interested in seeing?
How physically active are you?
Do you plan to do some hiking or outdoorsy stuff? Or are you foodies and want to eat at the best of the best? Are you renting a car or taking trains?
What's a "good" hotel? 5 star opulence or 2 star price?

sbmarti2

I would like to see Venice and Florence, but who knows if I'll have enough time. Whats the best way to start planning for this? I was thinking to start with the travel first, the airfare and the trains, then to divide the time between the cities, then to start looking at attractions between cities. Any better strategies?

sbmarti2

Sorry for double posting, but I'm trying to keep up. I'm pretty active, and plan to only be in the hotel to sleep. Food is part of the attraction, but not a big deal. We plan to see a lot of architecture and historical stuff. We are not renting a car and plan to use trains.

suze

I would never skip Venice. It in incredible and totally unique.

My method (by no means law) is to book the plane ticket, then hotels. That's all I do ahead of time. I travel on point-to-point train tickets and do not rent a car.

So for you I would highly suggest "open jaw" which means you could fly into London and out of Rome, to avoid backtracking time and expense at the end of your trip.

janisj

Sounds like you are flexible and willing to at least listen to advice. If London is at the beginning of your trip it probably needs a <u>minimum</u> of 5 days/nights. reasons - 1) you will probably be terribly jet-lagged on your frist day so it is basically a &quot;get your bearings and get fresh air&quot; day. And 2) London is HUGE w/ a TON of things to see. 3 or 4 days will just be a hectic blur.

One itinerary - just to get you thinking - could look like

- fly into London
- London 5 full days, train to Paris
- Paris 4 or 5 full days - then either fly or take an overnight train to Italy
- split the rest of your time between Florence/Venice/Rome
- fly home from Italy (whichever city gets you the best airfare)

mjs

I would first buy a guidebook to help you do your planning. Rick Steve's would be a good first choice for a novice. Lonely Planet, Rough guide, Frommers and Fodors would be some others to look at. If I had three weeks I would do London, Paris, Venice, Florence and Rome and skip Milan, Zurich and the french countryside as you really do not have that much time.
I could see stopping somewhere in Swizterland If you want to take a scenic train route through Swizterland from Paris to Italy but otherwise I would skip Zurich. Would be nice to spend sometime in the countryside but with your time and destination requirements it is difficult to see how his could be done easily without compromising your city destinations more. Remember that you have to include traveling to/from Europe plus a 1/2 day loss of time when you move from one place to another within Europe. If you have three weeks time, saturday to saturday for example, you will arrive in Europe on sunday and I usually do not schedule much for the first day although I know that some people like to hit the ground running. My experience with hitting the ground running is that it works fine for a short trip but for longer trips like yours a wall comes up around 2 to 3 weeks and you just do not want to do much for a day or so when you hit it. In any case this leaves you with 19 full days to tour before leaving Europe on a saturday for arrival home on sunday. Throw out two more days with transfers from London, Paris, Venice, Florence and Rome and you are down to 17 full days to explore the above destinations. I assume you are going to open jaw this with arrival in London and departure out of Rome.
Would take sometime before leaving to learn alttle French and Italian. Have no suggestions on hotels as I do not know what a good hotel means to you or your budget. I wish you a good trip!

suze

I think it's a little early for hotels(!) but recommend Pensione La Calcina in Venice, and Hotel Monge or Dacia Luxembourg in Paris. They are all moderate but nice places.

trsmom

Enjoy fewer places and the atmosphere and culture they present. Zurich is definetly good one to drop. It's a city about business and very drap. I hear Milan is shaping up, never been there, but know people who have. Rome is wonderful, Tivoli fountains a nice side trip (not the one in Norway) and there are nice country drives outside the city. Florence is wonderful...mostly for adults who love art ( I travel now with a kid). Great food, wonderful atmosphere. Venice is OK. Interesting for about a day, but they do now have an international airport to fly in and out of, which is convenient.

sbmarti2

its still a little to early for hotels, but as for the open jaw route, that may not work. I live in Halifax, and while a flight to or from London is around 900, a flight from Rome to Halifax is around 3000. That will require extra planning.

suze

OK, so land London, then fly out to your furthest city by budget airline, and work your way back to London at the end?

sbmarti2

I've checked, I'll go to London and go through to Rome, then fly back to London at the end. Its only $150 bucks roughly for a ticket.

JeanneB

sb:

I searched on Kayak.com for Halifax-London (Tue 4/17, return Tue May 8): $596 (US) on BMI airlines. It arrives at Heathrow at 8:30am. I then searched LHR to Rome...Alitalia lves at 12:05, arrives Rome FCO at 3:30pm: $108. Total: $700-US ($820-CAN) including the leg to Rome.

Based on what you've told us, I would...

start in Rome: 5 nights
Train to Florence: 2 nights
Train to Venice: 3 nights
Fly to Paris: 5 nights
Train to London: 5 nights

Drop the French countryside. We tried to do something similar on our first trip abroad and that part of the trip turned into a big blur.

sbmarti2

I like that itinerary, and that will probably be the one I go with roughly, although I think we'll do Milan instead of Florence. I realize I'm missing some great stuff, but I'm only 21 and I would enjoy the shopping. Other than that its smart, because if we flew to Paris we would only need to purchase a rail pass for Italy, which would save money, along with the obvious time savings. The only question is whether to do it that way or backwards, starting in London, then flying back to London when we're finished at Rome.

janisj

Don't jump into buying a rail pass. Very often point-to-point tickets are cheaper . . . .