Hello,

I am trying to plan a european vacation w/my girlfriend. I have only been to Europe once, and she has never been there. Is two weeks too little time to visit London, Paris, Rome, and Venice? Neither of us has been to any of these cities. I am thinking of going late April/early May. Any suggestions on how to divide the time amongst these cities? Thanks in advance!
-c

Go for it! You're young & in love! It's fine, as long as you're not anal, rigid, or worried about seeing every effing thing you read about. Crazy, but fun and do-able if you're lighthearted & energetic. (I've got a feeling I'm going to be alone in this advice, but whatever!)

Very doable. You won't see everything, you won't have time for daytrips to surrounding areas - but you'll get a nice taste of four of the best cities in the world. I'd fly into London and spend four days, including that first "jet -lag" day. On the fifth day I'd take the EuroStar to Paris and spend four nights there. Then fly to Venice for three, and finish in Rome where you can fly out of. Try to get an early morning or later in the day train from Venice to Rome so you don't use up the middle of a day, I think it's about a 5 hour train ride.

Hi P,

Each time you change hotels you lose at least 1/2 day.

Does your two weeks include flying into/out of Europe? Thats 2 more days.

So, you only have 10 days for 4 cities.

My suggestions are London and Paris, split equally or
Venice, Florence and Rome.

I agree with Ira and would either do Venice, Florence and Rome OR London and Paris. I am assuming that your travel time is included in the 2 weeks.
Fly open jaw--into Venice and out of Rome.

As you can see from my screen name, I love Italy and having been to all these cities more than once (except London), I would vote for the Venice, Florence, and Rome itinerary.

As crowded as Venice can be, I still love it! Stay in Venice--not Mestre or the Lido.

You will NOT lose half a day traveling between those cities. From London to Paris, you can take the first Eurostar and be in Paris by breakfast, with the entire day in front of you. When you are ready to travel to Rome, take the last flight and you won't miss any daylight hours. And, you can take an early train from Rome to Venice and be there by late morning. Very easy to visit those four cities in two weeks.

There may also be an overnight train from Rome to Venice, so you wouldn't lost any sightseeing time, and you'd save a hotel night by sleeping (only for a few hours) on the train.

thit_cho is sugar coating things a just bit. Sure the actual eurostar to Paris is less than 3 hours. But when you factor in packing, checking out of the hotel, checking in for the train 45 mins ahead, transfering to the Paris Hotel, checking in -- you are talking about nearly 6 hours. So gettiong to Paris in time for breakfast -- sure if you mean Brunch and leave your London hotel at 0430.

Just count on about 1/2 a day for any city/city transfer. Give or take a couple of hours.

But as mentioned - do you mean exactly 2 weeks/14 days? Does that include your travel to/from Europe? Answers to those two questions will determine how many cities is doable.

If you mean 14 days total, then subtract 2 travel days, then subtract 1 more day to account for the jet lag your first day in Europe -- you are down to 11 days free. Then subract your Intra-Europe travel and you are down to 9 or 10 truly free days.

So London/Paris or Rome/Venice/maybe Florence, Or Paris/Rome -- something like that

But on the other hand - if you mean 14 days "on the ground" in Europe, then London/Paris/Rome would be a bit rushed but certainly doable.

Sure, anything is possible.

But instead I would recommend London & Paris. OR Paris, Rome Venice.

Unless you have a particular reason you want to rush around to say you've been all 4 places, I am of the "quality not quantity" travel school of thought.

And yes you DO lose 1/2 day each time you change cities. Not to mention spending money. It's a hassle, there's no way around it.

I am a fan of taking one overnight train because I think it is romantic (others will disagree) and have done this to get between Venice and Paris.

I think it's really a matter of temperament AND what kind of place your head is in on that particular trip.

Some people like to move around a lot. Some people like to savor a place. And, godknows, everybody has different perceptions of what it means to "savor" a place!

If I've learned nothing else, it's that I don't think there's any "right" or "wrong" way to travel, not even for an individual...I've enjoyed (& not enjoyed!) many different approaches.

It depends on what you mean by 2 weeks. If you mean 14 days including the day to and fro - 4 cities is a lot. But if you tack it on the Memorial day weekend with both weekends you get 17 days - enough to do an overview of 4 cities assuming you fly out Friday night and return on the Monday.

With the latter you would have the choice of a brief overview of 4 cities - or more in-depth 2 cities plus a couple of day trips. With the former I wouldn't try to do 4 cities - but would stick with London/Paris and day trips - or perhaps London, train to Paris and fly to Rome - returning from there.

Each of you should write down what you've "always wanted to see" in each city. If you list the "typical" stuff (e.g. Big Ben, Eifel Tower, Vatican, etc.), I think you could hit it all in two weeks. However, if one of you wants to spend a full day at each of 8 musuems or the other of you has a list of 30 churches to see in Rome, you might need to trim a city or two.

If you're looking for romance, I'd go to Paris and Venice.

Another reason to consider trimming a city or two is if you think either or both or you will be intimidated or worn down by the logistics of getting from city to city to city...planes, trains, cabs, boats, all with luggage. Are you comfortable with public transportation?

You don't mention if your girlfriend is someone you met last month, or someone with whom you've lived for 5 years, or somewhere in between. It's certainly not our business, but you might want to think about how well you know one another. Do you get angry if you miss a train or a connection? Does she cry if she gets lost? Does one of you like to sleep in while the other wants to tour from sun up to sun set?If you don't know each other's traveling styles all that well, the fewer cities, the better.

With all that said, my friend took his family (a group of 6) on a "once in a lifetime" trip to Europe last Thanksgiving. In 10 days they went to London, Oxford, Venice, Zermatt and Paris. It would have killed me (especially with 4 kids!) but they had a terrific time. It's all a matter of personal preference.

Sure you could do it, but as mentioned prior, it's not ideal. Either do Italy (Florence, Venice, Rome) or London/Paris. If you feel so inclined, add Amsterdam to that mix.

Since in January 2007 I am going to six cities in 15 days (London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Reykjavik), I will advise you to go ahead and do 4 cities in 2 weeks.

Just be realistic about what you will and will not be able to see.

How long have you known your girlfriend and how much do you want this relationship to last?

I think the Venice and Paris combination is by far the most romantic of those cities you mention.