bardo1

Having gotten a bit of a feel for fyung, I would agree w/ Peter_S_Aus.

The “big three” (London, Paris and Rome) are a cliche for a reason. They are important. They are chock full of "must see" tourists sites. They don't disappoint. Also the point of three languages, three countries, three quite distinct cultures is worth noting. If you want to make it the "Big 3 and a smaller one", consider squeezing in Venice or one of the other smaller cities in your original post.

Finally, do some more reading, especially guidebooks. Your choice of Brussels over Antwerp, Ghent, or Bruge for your Belgium stop makes me, at least, think a little more research would pay off in making this trip suit your wishes more.

Many would say that 5 nights in each of the Big 3 <b>IS</b> "just seeing the highlights". It also leaves for a place or two (or three) for seeing things between or just outside of the Big 3 (Bath? Pompeii? Versailles?)

motherofthree

It is so tempting to want to see it all. There is something to be said for that - to go home having felt like you have experienced many places. My husband and I did just that when we were 27 and on a stricter budget and it left me with wonderful memories of Paris, Munich and London, but then recently we took our three children (7-13) to Paris and stayed there for 8 days and it was just incredible - to rent an apartment and wander the streets. To not be on a schedule and walk through all the parks. To not just see the museums but sit in sidewalk cafes for a while writing in journals. To rent bikes (in Giverny) and sketch Monet's house. If I had 17 days I would probably do two cities and really absorb them - maybe three, but no more - you can go back and in the mean time even three may overwhelm. Ironically, with time on your side in each place the best things - walking and exploring - are free anyhow! Have a wonderful time and just enjoy (and splurge once or twice on an amazing meal! you will never regret it!)

jotoha

Your idea about focusing on London, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam sounds very feasible (though see alternative below).

Most of the people here are of course correct that to get a proper feel for a place you need more time to just wander, etc. However, when visiting the first time, I strongly support your point about two days often being enough (re. Chicago). I have been to all the cities in your original itinary several times, and believe your view also holds true in Europe. The first time for me in each of the cities was for only 1-3 days, and yes, it was at times a bit rushed, but for me it was enough time to see the major sites that I had dreamed about seeing (and which you so often hear/read about).

In the light of this, you should be able to do 4 cities very well. I would however support Peter_S_Aus and go for the "big 3" as I think Rom (with a side trip to Florence) is more interesting than Amsterdam and Brussels. If you hold on to the four cities you are now focusing on, you will have the advantage that they are easy/fast to travel to by train (though you will most likely need to book in advance since you are travelling over a very busy period).

In terms of allocating days between these, I would suggest that you allocate 3 whole days (excl. travel) to each of Paris and London. Then if you want to hold on to Brussels and Amsterdam, make a list of what to see in each. Then whatever days you have left over can go either to Paris/London or if you have feel like seeing something different go by a low-cost airline to either Berlin or Vienna for two days.

fyung

thanks for everyone's replies

We have not purchased plane tickets yet since we wanted to plan out where we are landing and where we will be flying back home from. As of now I am pretty set on landing in London so then I can just head south to Paris/AMS. Hopefully we can get in at least early afternoon if not morning.

I have looked at the Eurostar/Thaly's Train system, but I am leaning towards flying back to Chicago from Paris. To me it would make sense to go to AMS then Brussels and do side trips to Brugges/Ghents/Antwerp(suggestions from Fodors members as well as other forums) then head to Paris and then fly home. But it seems as though there are no direct trains from London to AMS; I would have to go to Brussels head back up to AMS and then back down to Paris? Seems counterproductive, no? I have heard about the overnight ferry from London to AMs and am still considering it. I would save on Hotel, and travel while sleeping thus saving time. But alot of ppl are advising against it? I've never been on a Ferry also, so it would be something new for me. Please offer suggestions?

Lastly as far as what interests me and what I am looking to do? Honestly I just want to walk and see stuff, if that makes sense. Whatever visiting people go to those places to see, that's what I want to do. I like looking and taking pictures of architecture, scenery. I like museums, but only the bigger well known ones, etc. I've lived in Los Angeles, Chicago, been to Florida a few times, San Francisco and Hawaii as an adult(been out of the country as a child(Hong Kong, China, Brazil) but that doesn't count because I can't remember anything =), so it's hard for me to know exactly what to focus on in Europe. I'll just read through guides and go from there.

Also considering doing London, Paris then fly to Rome and then fly to Chicago from Rome; but thinking maybe I should do Spain/Italy on a future trip.

MFNYC

Have you looked into flying between some of the cities? There are som every inexpensive airlines within Europe (easyjet, ryanair). Go to whichbudget.com to compare prices and flights. There's no point in backtracking, or spending endless hours on trains when you can catch a quick flights for $30 or so. London/Paris and Paris/Amsterdam are easy train trips, but it's probably better to fly between London and Amsterdam.

fyung

Thanks for the flying into AMS from London idea, I had that in mind a month ago but for some reason forgot about that option. I'm getting 25-30 pounds a ticket, so it looks like a better option!

bardo1

fyung,

Your plans are looking much better.

Both

London-Amsterdam-Belgium-Paris (FLY LON-AMS - it's chaper and MUCH quicker than any alternative)

and

London-Paris-Rome (fly Paris-Rome)

are good, thoughtful, and logical trips.

Either one would nmake for a perfect 17-day trip. Have fun deciding and good luck with your trip!

Agree with the whichbudget.com suggestion too - it's an excellent resource.

fyung

I get a choice of 3 airports - London Stansted, London Luton and London Gatwick. Stansted and Luton cheap to offer the better fares. Does it matter which one I pick?

bardo1

Another thought is London-Paris-Belgium-Amsterdam and fly home from AMS.

fyung

bardo1 - Another thought is London-Paris-Belgium-Amsterdam and fly home from AMS.

Yep I am thinking of that route too but for some reason flying home from AMS costs $50-$100 more then flying home from Paris

bardo1

Any of the London area airports is about a 90 minute bus ride into central London.

Gatwick also has the option of a 30 minute express train.

Not much differnce among the three. I would weigh the total costs (airfare + cost of getting to airport) and time spent.

MFNYC

check transportation to those 3 airports from teh city (unless someone her can advise). The cheaper flights tend to have the more expensive airport transfers.

bardo1

Yes, but weigh that extra $50-$100 against any other costs (airfare from LOn to AMS, busses, ferries, etc.). Not to mention what you think your TIME is worth.