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?