20 days in Europe

Mar 10th, 2007, 12:56 PM
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13
20 days in Europe

My wife and I are taking a trip to Europe in September and/or October for about 20 days(not set in stone).I had just read in some of the guide books that it was a good time to go. I have never been, but my wife lived in germany when she was a little girl and took alot of tours aroun Europe. We are planning on going London-Paris-Frankfurt and/or munich-Innsbruck, Austria-Venice and/or siena-rome-greece. Were not sure if we should take the rail the whole way or fly some of it. Any recomendations for this trip. Things not to miss, nearby towns to see(daytrip or overnight). The dates and cities are not set in stone(exept paris and Rome).

Thanks, Jake
Jake_61247 is offline  
Mar 10th, 2007, 01:16 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 63,588
too many and/or's there to really help you very much. 20 days (give or take) is about 17 days (give or take) "on the ground" for sightseeing/touring. Then you have to subtract travel time between whichever cities you choose.

At very most you will want 3 cities or 3 cities and a couple of days out in the country somewhere. So which three cities hold the most attraction for you? London/Paris/Rome would make one option - fly into London, train to Paris, fly to Rome, fly home from Rome. Something like that.

My 3 favs would be London, Paris and either Venice or Munich. But that is just me - you might want Vienna or Rome instead of Venice or Munich.
janisj is online now  
Mar 10th, 2007, 06:21 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 91,164
I don't think we can really narrow it down for you, from the 10 places you mention.

That said, if Paris and Rome are for sure, I would suggest Venice as your 3rd city. Fly into Paris, overnight train to Venice, train to Rome, fly home from Rome. That would make a nice 20 day trip.
suze is offline  
Mar 11th, 2007, 06:28 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,154
Hi J,

9 destinations in 20 days?

Mid-Sept to mid-Oct is a nice time to go.

Choose 3 places and enjoy your visit.

ira is offline  
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:01 AM
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23
Why not Rail it! call raileurope get a 5, 6 or 7 country pass, Use the overnight train for a small surcharge to travel from country to country and save on Hotels etc Its so much easier than checking into airports. They helped us very much on the phone
stonefinder1 is offline  
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22
I agree with -stonefinder1-.
A great train route would be: Paris - Munich - Salzburg - Venice - Rome. Not too much, but manageable with still wonderful memories of each city in the given time frame.
Enjoy your trip!
KarinMarina is offline  
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
I quite disagree with the suggestion to get _any_ rail pass, but especially not a "5- 6- or 7-country" pass! - - unless you are a door-to-door salesman trying to call on as many customers as possible, a rail pass does not make sense. I don't even think that rail ltravel in three countries makes sense. Make it two - - if you must include a third country in this sampler, fly between the two that are furthest apart. Europe is brimming with low cost flights between almost any two cities you can name.

Does one of you speak any of the languages, in the countries you mention? Let that guide your decision, at least in part.

Frankfurt rarely gets much mention as a tourist destination (other than an airport where you can land or depart) - - is there an attraction to that part of Germany from her youth?

From what you have said, I think you should decide between concentrating on Italy... or Germany/Austria...

... and then, if you wish, include 3 or 4 days in London or Paris (but not both).

Best wishes,

rex is offline  
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:41 AM
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23
I know Rex disagreed with a rail pass but there are several reasons why I suggest rail pass, If you are only going to London, Paris and Rome this is what me and the wife did. We bought a rail pass for France-Italy only when in London you can get on the Eurostar for a small surcharge $108 because you already have a railpass for France that defurs the cost. You get on the train, no bags to get lost, no long lines to stand in, no delays but when you get to France you can go anywhere you want because you have the rail pass, WHEN you are ready to go to Rome jump on the Artesia Night train It leaves Paris Bercy at 7:06 PM gets into Roma at 9am the next morning the cost for us $214 surcharge for both that covers Overnight cost and transportation plus a romantic night on the rails and thats for a first class, Double room, Newspaper and mini breakfast then when you get to Italy go where ever you want cause you have the RAILPASS!!! can't do that with a plane. and you don't have to rent a car, Go to Pompei for a day, Naples for day, Venice and only stay in 1 hotel! Just a suggestion!! Good Luck Just figure all your costs and time up and only you all can make the decision.
stonefinder1 is offline  
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:13 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,586
The problem with a lot of destinations and public transportation is that you loose at least a half day each time you change cities - if you fly you have to deal with getting to and from the airport, getting there two hours early, etc plus the flight itself. Trains are easier in that they leave from the city centers and you don't need to get there as early but the train trip itself can be much longer. And trains are MUCH more expensive (except for short little 1-3 hour trips). You can fly pretty much anywhere in Europe for under €100.

That's why everyone is telling you only do 3 cities. But if you want to see a lot of places and you don't mind driving you could do it. You could start in Munich, then Salzburg, then Venice (there are good parking options where you can leave the car for 2-3 days), then Siena, then Rome. If you did about 3 days in each that would be about two weeks. Then you could fly to either Paris or London and home from there. I suppose if you really don't mind moving around you could do each of them for 3 days and incude both. You would also be able to see lots of small towns and country side between those places you did by car.

Certainly most people prefer a slower pace. I did a trip similiar to what I described several years ago, took 22 days and we did enjoy it. Now I prefer slower trips, but as long as you know that you'll just get a taste of each place, and not see everything, it CAN be done (and enjoyably).
isabel is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:11 PM.