16 days First trip to Europe
 

Hello, I am planning a 16 day trip to Europe this summer in August. I have many places I want to see but don't want to try to cram it all into one trip. I have narrowed it down to flying into London, going to Paris, Amsterdam, Munich, Rome, and Venice. I am wondering if this route is plausible or if I should get rid of one destination to spend more time amongst the rest. Any suggestions as to which one I should get rid of?

I also am trying to figure out the cheapest ways to get from one destination to another. I have done a lot of reading on the Erail passes but there is a mix of reviews, not sure if would end up actually saving me money buying a pass or just doing direct tickets to each destination.

I am open to suggestions of places to see and do in each destination as well(:
Thank you!

Seven destinations in 16 days equals about 2 days in each, and that doesn't even accounted for travel time.

I would get rid of at least 2 destinations, preferably 3. And buy open jaw air tickets.

Is that 16 days total including travel time? If so you will only have 13.5 days on the ground. London is enormous and even if you only want to see a tiny handful of just the 'major-est' sites you need 4 or 5 days minimum -- especially since you'll likely be jet lagged.

Paris -- another 4 or 5 days. Then pick ONE other city at most.

IF you mean 16 days on the ground/18 days all together -- then <i>maybe squeeze in one other city.

Open jaw/multi city helps(flying in to one city and home from another) -- otherwise you waster a day returning to the first city to fly home.

Train between London/Paris/Amsterdam -- flying is best from any of those to Italy.

No benefit from a rail pass

Evidently you have no specific interests, therefore you can pick any city or two to lop off your list.

If you have specific interests, state them. Then you can get meaningful assistance to pare down your selections.

And there's no way to do London, Paris and anything else in 16 days without some cramming because both London and Paris could easily take up your whole time.

Night 1, 2, 3 London; fly to Venice
Night 4, 5, 6 Venice; train to Rome
Night 7, 8, 9 Rome; fly to Amsterdam
Night 10, 11, 12 Amsterdam; fly home from Amsterdam

Wait a second - - that leaves 4 days left over! I'm sure you can come up with something.

I would skip Munich, though - - and maybe add a day to each city above. Flights are cheap and short within Europe, so hopping around by air actually makes more sense than planning a route by physical distance.

You don't have to see everything during this trip. Assume you will return...because you will. Once you get a taste of travel in Europe, you will be hooked.

Hi Art,

Welcome to the Forums,

Lucky you to have 16 days in Europe.

You are right to not cram everything into your first visit.

You want to visit 6 major venues in 16 days.

Not recommended.

About 5 of those days will be spent getting from place to place.

Consider that Europe will still be there next year.

You could have a very nice visit if you did The Grand Tour.

Two weeks in Italy (Venice, Florence, Rome) followed by a week in Paris or London.

Also consider 2 weeks in the British Isles and a week in Paris.

etc.

Enjoy your visit.

((I))

Dfourh left out both Paris and Munich.

I think I'd leave out Munich.

If so, I'd suggest fly into London and home from Rome.

4 nights London, train to Paris.
4 nights Paris, train to Amsterdam
2 nights Amsterdam, fly to Venice (Easyjet has cheap flights)
2 nights Venice, train to Rome
4 nights Rome

Of course, this suggestion could be modified according to your interests. However, since you haven't told us what interests you, I've made a very generic suggestion.

You'll save a lot of money buying your train tickets several months in advance.

Trains from London to Paris, www.eurostar.co.uk
Trains from Paris to Amsterdam, www.captaintrain.com
Trains from Venice to Rome, www.trenitalia.com/tcom-en

You need to use the Italian names of the cities: Venezia and Roma. If there are two or more in your group, compare prices on www.italiarail.com remembering to convert $$ to €€ to compare.

For cheap flights, www.skyscanner.net .

>>Night 1, 2, 3 London; fly to Venice
Night 4, 5, 6 Venice; train to Rome
Night 7, 8, 9 Rome; fly to Amsterdam
Night 10, 11, 12 Amsterdam; fly home from Amsterdam

Wait a second - - that leaves 4 days left over! I'm sure you can come up with something.<<

In reality:

Night 1 over the Atlantic
Night 2, 3 4 London -- leaving 2.5 partly jet lagged days for the largest city in Western Europe.
Night 4, 5, 6 Venice - less than 2.5 days (could be OK -- Venice is relatively small -- but has a lot to see)
Night 7, 8, 9 Rome - 2.5 days
Night 10, 11, 12 Amsterdam - less than 2.5 days
Night 13, 14, 15 some unknown 5th city -- 2 days free then packing.
Day 16 fly home

You are getting some good advice here. People are different. I kind of like moving on after being in a place for a 3-4 days. I've done Adam, the Rhine/Mosel, Paris and London in about 10 days, training through all. The days were full, but awesome. That trip helped me to know which I preferred (been back to Paris multiple times since) and which I didn't find as desirable (London).

I have flown around in Europe. You will want to weigh the time of getting to/from airports (and the flight) with training, which might leave/arrive near the heart of the destinations.

Also, with 16 days, plan for some fatigue, both physical and mental. There was a point in one trip where I just couldn't take another museum! Also, during my first trip my choice of footwear was poor and my feet were really sore by the end of the trip. You may want to plan a day trip or two to less urban areas.

You need to clarify how many nights you actually have on the ground - do not count the day you leave home, the day you arrive (which will be a 1/2 day jet lagged) or the day you depart.

Now - do you have 16 days or 13.5. Now, allow 1/2 day to travel between any 2 cities - so if you have 6 cities that is another 2.5 days. So now you are down to 11 days for 6 places - less than 2 days each.

Sorry - but this will be a VERY rushed trip that may end up being an expensive, exhausting blur of where am I today. Remember you are dealing with different languages in each place, different local customs, different transit systems, etc.

To really see much of anything I would limit yourself to 3 place (4 if you really have a full 16 days on the ground - plus arrival and departure days).

But to help you decide what to cut we really know what your interests are - what you really want to do and what you can do without. (I want to see every museum, palace and cathedral there is as well as other major historic sights. Some people just want to eat and shop. Others want to do bike tours or hike the mountains - although not with your itinerary.)

16 days including travel time. So only 13.5 on the ground. I know doing all those destinations would be too much in one trip. I want to eliminate 2 destinations the ones listed above are just the places I want to see most. I mainly wanted some input from travelers who have seen these areas and a recommended route. I have decided to eliminate London,as seeing London and Paris does not give me much left over time to visit other locations. I am considering multiple routes:

Paris-Amsterdam-Venice-Rome
Or
Paris- Amsterdam-Munich- Rome

It really comes down to either Munich or Venice, If anybody has been to both please share your opinion. As for my interests I want to see the museums and other historic sights,and of course a Bike tour in Amsterdam.

Thank you all, Ashley

Well I like Amsterdam, Paris, Venice, Rome. idea better.

I have never been to Munich but have to Venice (twice). I don't think I've ever heard anyone call Munich "magical" like Venice is.

Oh and those 4 cities with only 13.5 days is still a pretty aggressive itinerary.

If tits were my trip, I'd still cut one more. And do just Amsterdam, Paris, Venice. To me that's much more reasonable for the amount of time you have.

I've been to Munich several times and to Venice more times. It would really depend on your own personal likes, but I think most people would choose Venice. Munich has some beautiful churches and old squares, but Venice has -- <b>Venice</b>!

Plus there's that cheap Easyjet flight from Amsterdam to Venice.

I love Muenchen.
It comes second to Paris, which comes after Paris.
Venice is for me - yes - magical.
Amsterdam is nice and an esy one. Easir than Rome.

I agree about Amsterdam being "easy". I was there solo for 5 days at the beginning of a trip just once. Didn't find it the most fascinating place I've ever been, but interesting enough and extremely easy as far as figuring things out, language, city layout, even getting from and to the airport's a snap there.

Amsterdam isn't my favorite city in the Netherlands. I think that would be Utrecht. But it's easy to get to, which is a plus when time is short, and it's easy to get around, has some great museums, and some good restaurants.

13.5 days is very short for 4 major cities. Say you manage to get great connections and only lose half a day for each move . . . That leaves you just 11 days fre to see/do. That is fine for some places, but Rome and especially Paris will be VERY short changed.

I'd do 3 cities - maybe longer in Paris and Rome and just 2 days (3 nights) in the third city.