marvelousmouse

On the other hand, I agree with everything sassafrass said...and it really is a tossup. I’d have your wife and son research with you and whoever makes the most convincing argument, well, that’s where you go. It really is about mood. 5 days will be a pretty whirlwind trip- just a taste!

kja

The OP ruled seems to have ruled out Rome -- otherwise, as noted upthread, that's the city I would think most reasonable.

Songdoc

I vacation someplace different in Europe every year in early March, following an annual conference. I absolutely LOVED Paris and Amsterdam.

It snowed while I was in Paris and it made it even more gorgeous and even more wonderful to ducky k into a cafe for a hot drink. It was also quite cold while I was in Amsterdam. But we wore lots of layers and loved every minute.

You can't count on this, but it was surprisingly warm during this same time (different years) in Italy and more surprisingly, in Ireland!

Personally, I would choose between Paris & Rome, based on which one makes your heart go pitter-pat more ;-). And FYI, we do not spend a fortune on our trips, choosing inexpensive restaurants that are a few blocks away from the most touristy areas.

You can't lose with your list of choices. Hopefully, this won't be your only trip.

christabir

With such a short trip, I’d go where you can get a direct flight. Layovers can add lots of time to flights. Have you checked out prices for hotels in any of these cities? Easter week is generally expensive. Many hotels include breakfast. Airbnb (or similar) might be a good option for you, plus you can keep snacks and drinks. We make breakfast in our Airbnb’s. Coffee, wine too. Eating out, as above, can be done quite affordably.

A few days to “de-jetlag” is unnecessary. Get home Saturday and have the day to recover. So you could leave Thursday, arrive Friday. Then leave Saturday, arrive home Saturday. 8 full days. That’s a longer (and more expensive), better trip. You could do 4 days in 2 cities with a train trip between them.

Florence, Venice or Milan and Rome would be my choice, depending on good flights. You’re not interested in Venice because you haven’t been. It’s magical. Paris is spectacular.

I’d go to any of the cities on your list, plus more. I’d choose by airfare and flight schedules.

janisj

>>leave Thursday, arrive Friday. Then leave Saturday, arrive home Saturday. 8 full days.<<

Nope (if you mean 8 days on the ground) -- that would be 7 days, flying home on Saturday so no sightseeing that day.

Plus the OP says they want to be home by Friday at the <u>latest</u>.

Plus plus - adding a 2nd city does add transport costs they wouldn't have if they stick to one destination.

ToujoursVoyager

Hello John,

If it were my family and I:

1) I would try to stretch the traveling time and forget about recuperating from jetlag. I would also be more than ok with my child missing school 3-4 days of school to experience Europe.

2)I live also in Florida. Don't forget to check to low fare calendar on Norwegian airline (flies into Orlando and Fort Lauderdale/Miami. You can buy two separate one way tickets, making it convenient for an open jaw: fly in direct to Paris; fly out from Rome for example.

3) March in Europe can often be gray and rainy. It is not a question of enjoying the cold after living in Florida. That is a misconception. You will not enjoy overcast, short day light hours and rainy cold weather. That is why so many posters are directing you to Italy.

4) I would not pick my country based on what language my son can practice. Latin, Central America and the Caribbean is much closer to you from Florida and you can do that there. Not to say that Spain is not a wonderful location, it really is (I adore Andalusia!! And south of Spain can have lovely weather in March), but choose the location for other reasons (history, landscape, cultural, activities...)

5) If this was my first time in Europe, and I could have 10 full days, I would fly in Paris, train (overnight) to Venice and fly out of Rome.

Have fun planning! Most of us enjoy it almost as much as going on the trip itself.

ToujoursVoyager

But if you cannot or do not want to extend your trip, of your cities listed, my vote goes to Paris.

But I urge you to consider more southern destination like Italy, Andalusia, Croatia, Greece...

ellenem

" We could stretch to Friday, but we'd like to be home for a few days and de-jet lag ourselves before my son has school again."

When returning home from Europe to Florida, jet lag may work in your favor. You will wake up very early (on European time), so no problem getting to school. However, you will feel sleepy on European time as well, so by 7 or 8 PM you may want to sleep.

For me, arriving from the U.S. to Europe is the bigger adjustment, though that's mstly because I am unable to sleep on "overnight" flights. I'm usually OK after a day.

John117

Firstly, thanks for all the responses since I last posted.

I am still considering Rome, just accidentally wrote "Paris/Turin" instead of "Rome/Turin".

Madrid is off the list (and on the list for next time), and so is Berlin so I have:

Amsterdam
Berlin
Paris
Rome or Turin

To be honest, Amsterdam really calls to me the most, but I'm concerned about the weather and also that Paris/Italy/Berlin would have more to do other than museums and be a better standalone trip. Is Amsterdam "satisfying" enough to make it a standalone trip over the likes of Rome and Paris?

I would like to go longer, but unfortunately the school docks my sons grade a letter if he's out for more than six days over the semester, including sickness, so I need to leave some extra days in case something happens.

marvelousmouse

What do you want to do “other than museums”?

marvelousmouse

I ask because they all have a lot of museums. Any of the cities are going to involve a significant amount of time outdoors walking. And I’m really not sure that a family from Florida would notice much of a difference in the weather between Berlin, Amsterdam, and Paris in March. So I think if that’s a concern, you’re left with Italy.

marvelousmouse

But if Amsterdam calls, you’d best answer and remember there is no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing!

Amsterdam does have the benefit of being in a very small country. You could more easily day trip probably.

willit

I'd recommend Rome for most of the reasons others have already stated. There is plenty to do, much of it free. I found it to be significantly cheaper than more northern cities.

I'm often quite surprised on how my fellow Fodorites will take a budget and declare it insifficient, but in this case, they are probably correct.

A quick look at Skyscanner shows me flights from Florida to Rome, from March 9th returning on the 15th all to be over $1000. That's your original budget gone.
I normally recommend looking at an apartment rental rather than hotels - and for the same time period (10th to 15th)there are small studios sleeping 3 for around $100 a night, but you've still not accounted for transport, food or entrance fees.

Gardyloo

<i>Is Amsterdam "satisfying" enough to make it a standalone trip over the likes of Rome and Paris?</i>

In my view, yes, and I want to come back to a point I made earlier.

With six or seven days tops on the ground and functioning (you don't know how you'll react to six hours of jetlag) time management is going to be an issue.

Amsterdam is tiny compared to Paris or Rome. You can get from the airport to the center of the city in 15 minutes, from which you can walk or take a tram to hotels or most anywhere in town in minutes. You can get across the city in a half hour; getting across Paris or Rome can take an hour or more.

Within the canal rings (look at a map) it's also extraordinarily quiet compared to other cities, because more people are on bikes than in cars or buses. You spend no time dodging traffic or schlepping to metro (subway) stations compared to other large European cities. It's cost-saving, too: you can walk to many destinations rather than shelling out a couple of Euros every time you get on a bus or subway train.

Things to do? Historic churches, museums, open-air markets, canal boat rides... If it's dry you can rent bikes and blend in with the locals. Half an hour and ten bucks will get you to either Delft or Utrecht, incredibly picturesque and historic cities.

Edam: http://gardyloo.us/wp-content/upload...120312_49s.jpg
Delft: http://gardyloo.us/wp-content/upload...elftcanal1.jpg

Now, it's not Paris. Amsterdam has canals, but it doesn't have any boffo landmarks like the Eiffel Tower or Notre Dame. It's a much smaller-scale, maybe intimate city. If you want a knock-your-eyeballs-out destination, maybe Paris is preferable. With six or seven days you can get around Paris pretty well, although, again, you might find yourselves pretty pooped at the end of the day.

With a teen, you're probably not going to be looking at "brown cafes" or the red-light district in A'dam any more than you'd be looking at intimate bistros or clubs in Paris. In fact, you might want to look at Airbnb accommodations wherever you go; having cooking facilities and a private place not only would save money, but it would force you to go shopping in some street market for groceries, itself a blast. (Look here: https://www.amsterdam.info/markets/ ) With just a week or less, my recommendation is to use this trip as an ice-breaker and a way to figure out your own traveling styles. None of the landmarks of Paris or Rome are going anywhere, y'know; they're been there for centuries and will likely remain until you can come back.

thursdaysd

"You spend no time dodging traffic"

Not true. You spend time dodging silent bikes and not so silent trams. I was not happy walking the streets in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam has some good museums, but it is a better destination in better weather. While I am not a fan of Rome, given the alternatives, in early March that is where I would go. Buy a transport pass, although a lot of Rome is walkable. Look into advance tickets bought on the internet for major sites - i.e. get a guidebook!

marvelousmouse

Willit also makes a good point about flights. With your budget, I’m not sure a flight to Italy would be worth its cost for 5 days. That’s something you’d have to decide. And honestly, given your budget, flights would be the deciding factor for me. I just can’t imagine any of those places disappointing you. All very different from the US.

But either way, I would book pronto. You’re tied to your dates and at this point, spring break tickets just get more expensive ime

bilboburgler

I'd still think about London, most museums and galleries are free, yes it can be grey but London is drier than you think and ducking into musuems is a great way to go.

Envierges

Does an American 14 year old have enough grasp of French history to make a Paris visit worthwhile? For interest, weather and pricing I would pick Rome . . .but again the airfare presents a problem. Renting an apartment might be more difficult in Rome because the Italians aren't as English prone as the French. Maybe London is enough of a contrast for a first trip and there are usually very reasonable flights to London at that time.

Dukey1

Since the OP is in Florida(?) and has mentioned using WOW Air I am wondering if he has explored the possibility of flying on Norwegian from either Orlando or Fort Lauderdale to save some money.

maitaitom

My first ever trip to Europe included Paris (I was 16). I've been back more than a dozen times. I was captivated as a kid and even more so as an adult.