thursdaysd

I, on the other hand, have been to Ferrara twice, and would go back. It is also flat...

frencharmoire

Amsterdam probably gets repeatedly suggested to you because it is flat & has easy train connections to other flat places. One thing to consider, however, is that the walkways of Amsterdam are shared with hundreds of cyclists, who dominate Amsterdam traffic as much as trams. It really can be quite unnerving. On several flights I've taken into Amsterdam, the cabin crew, as part of making "welcome to Amsterdam" annoucements and final goodbyes, will warn tourists to pay attention to the cyclists, and be sure to observe where the cycling lanes are as opposed to walkways.

Amsterdam is certainly not just a place for young stoners and gawkers at the prostitution trade (which is invisible in 90 percent of the city), but it probably appeals most to travelers who want to mix in some museum-going -- Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Anne Frank -- with beer drinking and general sightseeing around the canals. It's a small, beautiful city but very diferent from the hothouse flower of Venice, which is truly stuck in a time warp except for the zillions of other tourists.

By the way, Venice has a casino, but I've never been and wouldn't know a good casino from a bad casino anyway.

StCirq

I'm a big fan of Amsterdam, but I agree that the cyclists and trams are unnerving. I've probably had more near-misses at being run over in Amsterdam than anywhere else in the world besides India and I'm pretty careful and observant.

Gardyloo

Coming late to this thread, so sorry if I repeat what others have already said.

Frankly I'd circle back to the cruise idea, but with a minor twist.

Why the cruise: Well, first, it removes the logistical hassles that can interfere in independent travel. You unpack once, the room (cabin) is terrifically comfortable and well-appointed. There's room service whenever you want it, there are no language challenges (although there are plenty of foreign languages being spoken all around you.) There's laundry service, generally good food with a lot of variety and in a lot of settings, and you can be as active (physically or socially) as you want.

When the ship is in port (pretty much every day) you've got activities ranging from the fully independent - disembark, grab a taxi, walk around, go to museums or look at the architecture, visit the local market and eat local food, then taxi back to the ship - to the highly organized and restricted.

The ship is obviously very easy to get around, even for those with mobility issues. If the port calls are in hilly cities, there are hop-on-hop-off buses, or you can book a car and a driver. Or maybe the sight you want to see is 50 miles from the port, so you rent a car for the day and head there. And on a per-person-per-day basis, cruises are very often much cheaper than equivalent days spent in hotels, restaurants, train stations, etc.

Oh sure, there are drawbacks. The ships only call at seaports, so getting to the Alps or big inland cities (Paris, London, Madrid, Zurich...) is out. And by catering to all tastes and budgets, there can be a "lowest common denominator" effect where the choice of shore excursions is limited to things that sell well. Plus, the cruise lines make their money on alcohol, the casino, shopping and shore excursions, so controlling those impulses is important if you want to save money.

But for "first timers" to Europe, the cruise can be a comfortable, secure and predictable means of seeing some pretty fascinating places. It allows people to focus on the visit and not on the day-to-day management. Now for some of us, it's precisely those logistical features that we enjoy - discovering back-alley restaurants or comfy and cheap rooms upstairs from the bistro. Hard to do when you have to be back on board for a 6 PM sailing to the next stop.

So that leads me to my suggestion: Do both. Fly to some city from which you can cruise, but fly there a week before the cruise departs, and spend that time exploring the city or nearby countryside. Then board the cruise and visit the places or see the sights where the ship goes.

What about this for your family, for example? Fly to Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Both cities are flat and a dream for walkers. Visit the fun neighborhoods - the Jordaan in Amsterdam, Christianshavn in Copenhagen. Ride around the canals, hit the fabulous museums and go to the flower market in Amsterdam; visit the amazing Tivoli gardens in Copenhagen or do a day trip to one of the picturesque villages accessible by bus or boat from the city. Eat rijsttafel or smørrebrød or go to some very trend-setting restaurants in either city. Go deep.

Then get on the ship for a 10-day cruise up to the Norwegian fjords, or maybe east through the Baltic Sea to Stockholm, Helsinki, Riga, St. Petersburg... Amazing scenery and cities, museums and villages. No worries about finding accommodation, it's right there. Or on sea days, just stand by the railing and listen to the ocean hissing by. It's quite seductive.

So it <i>might</i> be the best of both worlds. Worth a thought, anyway.

kybourbon

>>>I, on the other hand, have been to Ferrara twice, and would go back. It is also flat..<<<

There are a lot of flat places in Italy - Ravenna, Bologna, Florence, etc.

>>>One thing to consider, however, is that the walkways of Amsterdam are shared with hundreds of cyclists, who dominate Amsterdam traffic as much as trams. It really can be quite unnerving<<<

I agree. I've seen a cyclist shove a person (likely a tourist) out of their way and almost knock them over.

I would ask each of them if there were one thing they could see in Europe (or Italy if you want that to be your destination), what would it be? That would give you an idea of where to go. Split your time between the two things they choose.

buferson

I'm sorry I caused hard feelings. I didn't mean to. I do realize that the original poster didn't say her parents were too old. No one did directly, but in some cases it was implied. My point was that I've reached an age near theirs and have had to adjust my travel plans accordingly. I then gave examples of ways to make travel easier.
I've never taken a cruise, but we're looking at them more now. There are river cruises within Europe that eliminate the baggage handling, unpacking and transport problems. My in-laws did a couple of these and extended their foreign travel years.
I hope it all works for you and your parents. Seeing the world is a wonderful thing.

KTtravel

I like kybourbon's suggestion, "I would ask each of them if there were one thing they could see in Europe (or Italy if you want that to be your destination), what would it be? That would give you an idea of where to go. Split your time between the two things they choose"

bilboburgler

honestly I wouldn't do a sea based cruise, but I might consider a river cruise for part of the trip, but watch the costs they soon add up. Viking on the Rhine look a good price if that helps

doug_stallings

I think a river cruise plus 3 or 4 days on each end would be ideal. You can do a river cruise for about $2500 per person or less, and it includes all the accommodations, travel from place to place, an excursion in every town (sometimes 2), and meals---even drinks with meals. It's actually quite a good deal considering what you get. If you want to avoid France, you could start in Prague for a few days, join a Danube cruise, and then maybe stop in Budapest for a few days after before heading back to Montreal. It keeps you away from areas that have been prone to terrorism, and it could be done on a reasonable budget. There have been terrorist incidents in Germany, but none I can think of in Hungary or the Czech Republic.

It's funny that there's so much talk of the UK, where terrorism has been more of an ongoing concern than in France.

quiltingmamma

True UK has seen terrorism in one form or another for some decades, but France's activities may have hit others at a more viceral and emotional level.
I am on numerous travel forums and people ask 'is it safe' and they come from countries and cities that a good part of the world are nervous to visit. Unless visiting war torn countries, I think the feeling of 'safe' is a personal impression.
Given that the US State Department has recently put a terrorism warning for all of Europe, Hungary and Czech Republic have now been thrown in with the rest of them.

newtome

Read through the whole thread and I'm still confused why the poster feels the need to take her parents to Europe. Have you asked your parents if they want to go? My in-laws for example we're great travelers to the same places over and over – Hawaii, Mexico, and Canada. All places that are easily reach from the western US. They talked a lot about going to Europe someday and certainly had ample resources to do so but never did. I concur with other poster so suggest a weeklong trip closer to home, maybe just even with your mom, who may then convince your dad to traveling is fun. But it may be they don't share the same love for travel that you do.

IMDonehere

As someone who has been traveling to Europe for 45 yaers, there has always been some form of terrorism in Europe, it just did not get the attention of today.

In Spain between 1968-2011, the Basque separatists, ETA mounted hundreds of attacks and killed almost 850 people. (A restaurant in Pamplona we frequented was blown up a week after a visit.) And the bombing of Atocha

What about the IRA in UK?

Goldenberg's in Paris was machine gunned in 1982. (two weeks after one of our visits.)

Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany.

The Bologna train station massacre.

And let me point one other thing. In the US there have been 83 mass murders in the last twenty years, the majority of them by white Americans.

You see what you want to see, and you fear what you want to fear.

historytraveler

I've been reading the posts, and I think doug's suggestion of a river cruise makes the most sense.

In regard to terroism, IMDonehere's comments reflect my own views. Terroism has been around for centuries. It's not just about ISIS and the here and now.

suze

I like the river cruise idea.

But I also liked the first itinerary they proposed of Venice, Florence, Rome. Just don't do things that are too intense where you have to stand in lines, etc. You don't have to try to see every single thing in each city. Take it at an easy pace.

PalenQ

As someone who has been traveling to Europe for 45 yaers, there has always been some form of terrorism in Europe, it just did not get the attention of today.>

Yes indeed - don't forget Lockerbie - one of the highest death tolls with many American students studying abroad.

The chances of being in a terrorist attack is less than your chance of being hurt or killed en route to your local airport or say crossing streets in London.

But folks do get to be Nervous Nellies after such large incidents - I used to run group trips in Europe when Lockerbie plane came down and suddenly about half of our folks canceled within a few days.

greg

It is a losing proposition to argue with most folks regarding safety. Very few people make decisions based on empirical data. Most are comfortable making decisions strictly along the "safety" of ideological lines. Cognitive biases such as recency bias play an overwhelming role in making decisions.

Tabernash2

London, Paris, Amsterdam. Easy to do by train. Each city is beautiful and unique.

Relatively flat for walking. We visited these three, with our two teens.
Had a lot of fun. Liked Amsterdam more than Venice.

You're right about Lisbon. We loved it for 5 nights one October, and it is hilly. But, even worse: the original sidewalks are very slippery granite. I fell down twice, wearing Birks. I don't usually fall down, either. It is notoriously slick.

Good time to travel, with the price of the euro.

Tabernash2

Oops. Just saw you said No to Paris.

The idea of following your heritage is cool, if that appeals to you.

If Italy is your first interest, early May is very nice there. The gorgeous deep pink flowers were all blooming on the Spanish Steps, weather was coolish/mild. One rainy morning in Rome, but it stopped by noon.

I hate crowds and heat. It was not crowded at all in Rome, Florence, Santa Margherita Liguria, or Venice. Merchants were just gearing up for their season. And it was not hot!

I love StCirq's idea of visiting the Italian lake region.

Since they have never been to Europe, I think I would focus on the most talked-about places. It's too bad Paris is out.

London?

whfan_whfan

Thank you so much guys for all this info. After a little talk with my parents, they said that at this moment it's not the right time, my dad has to do some work on his teeth which will be expensive and one of my mom's shoulders has been hurting a little bit for a while so she needs to relax it. Basically they said that once things are a little more 'quiet' they'd consider it. I guess right now they have other concerns... I'm guessing this year I'll probably try to take them somewhere here in Canada for a nice getaway of a few days... And hopefully by next year in May they'll be in a state of mind where they are excited to do a trip and talk further about it. Of course my mom also said 'go have fun, travel the world with your friends, don't let us hold you back'. I had promised myself that the next time I go to Europe I'd bring my parents, we'll see what happens, hopefully next year it will be the right time and everything will come together.

This thread has been very helpful and I'll definitely get back to it because it's full of advice. My heart still leans towards Italy for some reason, although I like the idea of a river cruise too, I have to check the prices & options for that. Whatever I do, I guess I have to make sure to not want to see 'everything'. For example if we are in Rome, we can walk around the Roman Forum, see the Colosseum from outside, but if it's a hectic long wait to go inside it in addition to the many stairs once inside, maybe it's not the end of the world to skip that part and relax in a some plaza for a drink instead. So basically maybe it's not really about the destinations themselves but rather to not try to do everything once there and make it very easy going. But there are so many interesting destinations that have been mentioned, so I'm not worried.

Thank you so much.

frencharmoire

Great that you and your parents are able to talk candidly about all this. You are right that travel is only occasionally "about the destinations" -- although I must say that sometimes it is easier, if you want a relaxed, fun, socially happy expeirence of foreign travel that it can be easier if you pick a place that isn't full of famous supposedly "must-see" things but is more about the special atmosphere of your surroundings.

Italy is overflowing with just such places, but it is hard to just put your feet up & watch the passing crowds if you are in Rome or Florence. There are tips for skipping the lines and avoiding crowds in these places, but there is still a lot that the guidebooks list as a "must-see". Staying in a smaller Tuscan town, or going to a flat magical city like Verona (which has incredible variety (ancient Roman, medieval castle, Renaissance piazza + garden + a rushing river) really does allow for making your own way at your own pace with no loss of beauty.

All that said, if you ever heaer your Mom or Dad say "I'd really love to see X", then you have your answer, even if it is the most famous crowded tourist spot on the planet it will be worth it.

In the meantime have fun with your own travels...