Paris however has recently combined I think arrondissements in the center - 1, 2 and 3 I think combined?

anyway anyplace in central Paris is safe as riots go - you should be much more worried about pickpockets in crowded places like metro stations - be conscious of that and you'll be fine. Always carry valuables in a secure money belt or pouch that goes under clothing - nothing of value in a day pack -I've found my pocket on my pack unzipped once -nothing of value in it.

@frencharmoire thank u so much for the info.
We're more of a sight-"see-er" rather than "night-outer".

@suze: thanks! Would keep it in mind. We're thinking of a rental apartment or airbnb or anything of that sort, saves money on accomodation.

@palenQ yep, i've heard about these pickpockets in Paris. Insane. I'll keep in mind, thanks a lot!

Before you consider an apartment in Paris, read this:

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...s-in-paris.cfm

@thursdaysd: oh i never knew about this topic in legal apartnebts or not. Thanks for sharing. I see.. perhaps a hotel is more apt in paris. But i suppose apartments in italy or barcelona shouls be ok?

Apartments in Barcelona are OK if they are registered. There are issues there too.

If I were you, I'd start in Paris (3 days), head to Barcelona (3 days), do the South of France (4 days), go to Venice (2 days) from the South of France, and end in Rome (4 days). This gives you some time to enjoy each place and travel.

I prefer trains - night trains, commuter trains, local trains, to get this all done but I last did this in 2005. I don't know what trains schedules are like now. Back in the day, I found booking my tickets individually from the local websites was more cost effective than doing a eurail pass or whatever.

In case you care, this is what we did in 2005 (our first trip). We were young (28), so maybe we did a little more than we should have. It was exhausting but exhilarating. We started and ended in Paris because we were flying with miles. It was harder to book in and out of different places back then. Now it's much easier!


Land in Paris. Two days, one night in Paris
(Night train to San Sebastian - 25 euro!!. Two days in San Sebastian)
Night train from SS to Barcelona. Three days in Barcelona.
Commuter rail to Banyuls in the South of France. One night there.
Night train from Banyuls to Nice. Two days in Eze.
Day trip to Monaco. Night train to Venice.
Day in Venice. Night train to Rome.
Four days and nights in Rome. Night train to Paris.
Two days in Paris.

BTW, I wouldn't skip Venice! We were there from 7 AM to 11PM on a cold November day. Stored our stuff in the station and wandered around from dawn to way past dusk. We shivered all day but it was indeed magical.

@overlt: thanks.
We are starting and ending in paris as well.
Our initial plan is to stay:
PARIS : 2 days
LUCERNE: 2 days (by train)
MILAN: 2 days (by train)
VENICE: 3 days (by train)
ROME: 2 days (by train)
BARCELONA: 2 days (by plane)
AMSTERDAM: 2 days (by plane)
PARIS: 2 days (by train)
Fly home

Sorry, that initial plan is not optimal. Too many destinations and too little of time. At first you said 3 places, then you cited 4 cities, now you have 7 destinations!!

2 days in culture-rich cities like Rome or Barcelona do not cut it. Deduce half a day from it for train time, and you'll have a tiny amount of time left.

Cut out at least 2 cities. I suggest cut out Amsterdam and even Barcelona.

I thought you had two weeks? You need to count nights, not days. Two nights gets you one day. Print off a blank calendar (lots of free ones on the net) and lay this out, showing where you will sleep and putting in the time for travel.

I would skip Lucerne and Milan. Choose either Amsterdam or Barcelona. If you have not alread bought your plane tickets fly into one city and out of another - backtracking is a waste of time and money.

Since this is your first trip I recommend reading "Europe Through the Back Door" and Rough Guide's "First Time Europe".

Where you stay in each city really should depend on your style of travel, how much you want to spend, and how you want to get around (public transport?) For a short stay, I sacrifice comfort for location because you don't want to spend your limited time getting from place to place.

I agree with the people who think you should skip Milan and Lucerne. Next trip. I also agree that don't backtrack if you haven't bought your ticket. It's a much better idea to spend four full days in

I haven't traveled in years, and I'm not a Europe expert by any stretch, but here's what I know:

In Paris, I have stayed in the 5th, the 6th, the 14th, and once way off in the middle of nowhere. For a first time visitor, the Latin Quarter would be very convenient, IMO, but I found Montparnasse to be lovely and residential (more slice of life).

In Barcelona, I have stayed at a hostel near the Ramblas, an apartment in Montjuic, the B-Hotel near Catalunya stop (IIRC), and near the train station. Of all of those, the B-Hotel was the most convenient actually since it was right by a good stop and across the street from the airport bus! The hotel near the central train station was actually not convenient at all (much to my surprise). The apartment in Montjuic was kind of shabby but nice because the area was quiet and residential.

Didn't bother overnighting in Venice - v. expensive. Spent one very long day there and that sufficed. Would have loved to have spent more time but I'm glad I saved our days for Rome.

In Rome, I stayed by the station, because I could afford it. It was fine for us, back then, but it was shared bathrooms and whatnot.

If they still publish "Europe by Rail" or a book like that, I would check it out. It will help you plan journeys that make sense.

Your initial plan is still way too ambitious. If you follow that plan, your entire vacation will be spent in train stations and airports, which is really unpleasant when you could be out and enjoying new places. Cut it back to 3 stops and don't fly into an out of Paris. Get open-jaw tickets so you don't have to waste time and money backtracking. It may cost a small fraction more (though not always), but the money spent backtracking to Paris is wasted anyway.

You don't seem to have understood that 2 days in a place is actually 1 day, when you subtract the travel time. Travel time also adds significantly to the costs of a trip. So in sum you are paying double to see half.

I highly doubt Europe By Rail is published anymore, though I suppose it may be. Instead, familiarize yourself with www.seat61.com.

I should add that, unless things have changed since I last was in Europe in 2010 (OMG - has it been that long?!) I completely agree with those who said to minimize flying between cities. It's expensive and it can take hours to get from the city centers to the airport (plus it's expensive). Then you have the stress of cancelled flights and delays.

You are young, you'll be back. Once I started traveling I always found reasons to go back :)

All my comments are IMHO and will always be so, unless offering train/ferry timings etc. Always have and always will be. This is the internet, most things are IMHO.

1) franchamoire's advice on safety is spot on
2) PARIS : 2 days A
LUCERNE: 2 days (by train)
MILAN: 2 days (by train)
VENICE: 3 days (by train) A
ROME: 2 days (by train) A
BARCELONA: 2 days (by plane) A
AMSTERDAM: 2 days (by plane) A
PARIS: 2 days (by train)
is crazy, my advice is
a) put all the Paris days at the start or the end
b) book open jaw flights so you don't have to back track
Of the cities you have mentioned the ones with an "A" are ones that are top class.

That is not to say, "don't go" to Milan or Lucerne they are just not in the same league. Even the best bit about Lucerne is its position.

Venice for 3 days is about right, unless you want to use it to visit that area,e.g. Verona (shakespeare), Padua (shakespeare) etc All the other places have insufficent time attached so I would recommend you take the time from L and M and fit it to the other cities.

"Didn't bother overnighting in Venice - v. expensive. Spent one very long day there and that sufficed. Would have loved to have spent more time but I'm glad I saved our days for Rome."

Couldn't disagree more. Venice is much nicer after the day trippers leave. Have been twice for five or six days each time and would be happy to go back. Although I do go in the off season when it's cheaper, and last time I slept in Sant' Elena.

While seat61.com is my go-to site for rail travel, "Europe By Rail" is still published - I have a copy of the latest edition. It is written by the editors of the magazine "Hidden Europe" (which a Fodorite introduced me to some time ago).

http://www.europebyrail.eu/

https://www.amazon.com/Europe-Rail-D...europe+by+rail

http://www.hiddeneurope.co.uk/

There is also a "Europe by Eurail", which I remember reading a while back and not finding very useful. The excellent "Rail Map of Europe" that used to be published by Thomas Cook also still exists, with a new publisher, as, I believe do the timetables.

I believe do the timetables.>

which are still printed but also online.

Prexypants, unless you are simply interested in ticking names of a list, your latest itinerary sucks. As noted already, you will spend next to no time actually in any of the places you list and a whole lot of your time simply moving from A to B to C.

You cannot count a day on which you travel as a day spent in a place. You don't spend it in the place you leave and you don't spend it in the place you move to.

One full day in Rome? Come on, are you serious? I doubt you could find anyone who would think that made any sense at all.

still mapping out my final places to go.
thanks for the info guys!
would love to hear more suggestions from you

Thursdaysd, I am amused that you disagree with my factual statement that I did not bother overnighting in Venice ten years ago.

Overlt - I would have thought it obvious that I was not disagreeing with the fact that you did not overnight, I was disagreeing with the idea that it was a good plan. IMO, of course.

Anyone who thinks one day in Venice competing w/ the day trippers and cruise passengers is enough . . . hasn't seen Venice.

Prexypants: Sorry but your
>>PARIS : 2 days
LUCERNE: 2 days (by train)
MILAN: 2 days (by train)
VENICE: 3 days (by train)
ROME: 2 days (by train)
BARCELONA: 2 days (by plane)
AMSTERDAM: 2 days (by plane)
PARIS: 2 days (by train)
Fly home<<

Plan is GAWD Awful. :(

Please listen to others that you are not accounting for travel/logistics . . . and IF you must fly in/out of Paris put all your Paris days together. You already have too much packing/unpacking/checking in/checking out withput add an extra stay in Paris.

Which FIVE cities max are your musts? Paris, Amsterdam, Venice, Rome and Barcelona could (just) be squeezed into your time but it would still be a rush. Four would be better.

Yeh cut a few places - like Milan and Barcelona and do the rest all by train - there is an overnight train Paris-Venice and v.v. too.

I'm wondering how 2 weeks in the title translates to 17 days as per the proposed itinerary. LOL

But hey prexypants, you could do worse.

Overit has suggested to you, "Night train to Venice.
Day in Venice. Night train to Rome."
I guess overit showers on the train changes clothes,leaves luggage in the train station till the evening, gets back on the train to go to Rome.

I consider that a nightmare suggestion. It sounds like part of an 'Around the world in 80 days' scenario.

For what it's worth, I did take a somewhat comfortable night train (with a bed!!) from Monaco to Venice, arrived in Venice at 7 AM, froze all day, and left at 11 PM. Then I took a really uncomfortable night train from Venice to Rome that was 1) freezing cold; 2) damp; 3) delayed. Arrived at a shabby hotel and took a cold shower in a rundown hostel with a shared bathroom.

No it wasn't comfortable. Yes, I was tired before and after. But I was there before the daytrippers came and after they left and it was off-season so we had Venice to ourselves. I'm so glad I squeezed that one day in instead of not doing Venice at all. I've never had the opportunity to go back to Italy, and I probably will never see Venice again. So for me, that one uncomfortable day was 100% worth it. I'm glad I squeezed Venice in instead of leaving it out.

Not everyone has the time and money to give every place the time and attention it deserves.

OP will read what we have to say and come to her own conclusions. No need to disparage other people's experiences.

By the way, dogeared, I wasn't suggesting that OP do my 17-day itinerary. After making a suggestion to her, I merely offered it as an example of what a 28-year-old first-timer to Europe did (and said so in so doing).

We enjoyed our trip even though it was tiring and we were on the move a lot.

My friend and I did a two week trip to Europe in September and had an amazing time! We are in our 20s as well and we're trying to see as much as possible in our short amount of time there. Our itinerary is below. The one thing I would change is only spending 2 nights in Paris...we would have rather stayed there longer and taken out Naples.

-Overnight flight to London
-London for 3 nights
-Early train to Paris
-Paris for 2 nights
-Early flight to Venice
-Venice for 2 nights
-Early train to Rome
-Rome for 4 nights
-Afternoon train to Naples
-Naples for 3 nights
-Early flight back to the US from Naples International Airport

I realize this trip is not for everyone. It is a lot of traveling and doesn't allow for you to fully immerse yourself in the amazing cultures that Europe has to offer. However, for us it was perfect. So I hope this helps some! You could always trade out London for Barcelona too.

There is something to be said for a quick initial trip as a way to set up more in-depth future trips - 2 nights in Paris though (really a day and a half) begs for more the first time around.

To me the problem is the same almost every time someone puts the word 'Europe' in the title.

Why is it that people don't write saying they plan to spend 2 weeks visiting N. America? A couple of days in Canada, then the USA and then Mexico. I don't think anyone would do anything other than laugh at the idea that you can visit N. America in 2 weeks.

Europe has a lot of countries and each of them while not geographically large, has a huge amount of interest for almost anyone. But somehow this idea that you visit 'Europe' as if it was one country and you can then just pick a couple of places in it to spend a day or two and say you've 'been there' continues to be common.

While I can agree to a point that someone can do a 'taster' trip somewhere, visit a few places quickly and later return to spend more time, I cannot agree that someone can do a 'taster' trip of Europe in 2 weeks. You can do a taster of France or Italy or Spain, etc. but not the entirety of Europe, in two weeks.

When someone writes that they plan to visit Europe, the first response should be, how many months do you have?

Hebaseheart, you too refer to visiting Europe and then you write about your trip that you were "trying to see as much as possible in our short amount of time there."

That is an understandable wish but consider what you actually did do and what you say you wanted to do. What does 'as much as possible' mean to you?

Does it mean simply ticking names of a list? Does it mean spending a large percentage of your time moving from place to place? The way to actually see and do 'as much as possible' in any given period of time is to spend your time in places seeing and doing things. You confused as most do, quantity with quality. In fact, you did NOT see as much as possible at all. What you did was in fact see about as little as possible in your short amount of time. You confused the word 'much' with the word 'many' and they are not synonymous. That phrase, 'as much as possible' along with 'visit Europe' are probably the worst two phrases anyone can use when considering travel to Europe.

You saw London, you did not see England, you did not see Scotland, you did not see Wales, you did not see N. Ireland.
You saw Paris, you did not see France.
You saw Rome, Venice and Naples, you did not see Italy.
And you sure as heck didn't see Europe.

All you 'saw' is 5 cities and you didn't even see much of them. Was that in fact 'seeing as much as possible'? If you had simply spent your entire time in London alone, you would have seen more because you would have lost no time moving from place to place. You would have in fact spent all your time other than your arrival and departure day seeing and doing things. That's how you 'see as much as possible.'

Nothing personal hebaseheart, I'm just using your posting as an example of what many people do and don't realize they are actually doing.

There is a reason why 'fast food' was invented. People are used to not having enough time to do all the things they have to do in their day. They rush from place to place, get angry whenever the car in front of them is driving at the posted speed limit. (Does anyone understand what it means when the sign says "Maximum Speed Limit") Everything has to happen faster, faster,faster, until one day someone says to you, 'I'm so busy living the life, I have no time to live life.'

Vacation is the one time you have when you can choose to stop that pace of living.

@Dogeared: I believe this forum is something to read for suggestions. most of the people who put "europe" in their subjects, myself included, wouldn't want to specify certain places yet simply because we're not yet decided where to go specifically in europe.
would you only call yourself a resident of the world, when you only live in a certain place perhaps and not lived the whole world in its entirety?
Forgive my ignorance, but I am a first time traveler in Europe. and my purpose in posting is seeking out ideas where to go in Europe. it is the same idea when westerners would put in travelling to "asia". Same goes, Asia is big.
Technicalities aside, aren't we here to ask and openly discuss what we think is a good plan? No offense meant, but rather than correcting what is pretty obvious, we, as first timers would appreciate info in a certain place, what's good to eat, specific place to go, etc, as you know, every travel is a unique experience to anyone. :)

anyway, i would want to stay in Marais/ Latin Qtr area in Paris, any suggestions of a midrange boutique hotel? or something of that sort?

You need to specify, in euros, what a "mid-range" hotel means to you. How many euros do you have to spend and what is your idea of a "boutique" hotel?