London 4 days
Eurostar to Paris - 2.5 hrs
Paris 3 more days
TGV to Switz - Lucerne 1 d
Lucerne 2 days
Train to Venice 1 d
Venice 2 days
Train to Florence 3.5 hrs
Florence 2 d
Train to Rome 1.5 hrs
Rome 3 d

= 18 days, add three more for a nice 21-day trip - don't think you need spend 5 days in any place - of course you could spend weeks in Rome but three days for most is about right IMO

It's all a matter of how much you want to travel - i prefer a faster pace but i respect janisj's slower approach but neither is mandated.

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of having a month long vacation like some folks ^... So I really wanna make the most out of my 2 weeks by visiting as many places as I can and get sort of like a little taste of everything. I know that a more in depth trip is better than a quick stop in a city but this is what my job permits, so let's leave it at that. Anyway, thanks for the input y'all!

rose - have you considered a tour?
If you really want to the "little taste of a lot of places thing" in fourteen days, a tour is just the thing for you. Leave the transport and hotels to the tour company and sit back and enjoy.
Most of the 'sperts here stop and stay in one place and that is where their advice is useful.

Hi R,

>I really wanna make the most out of my 2 weeks by visiting as many places as I can and get sort of like a little taste of everything. <

This is a very common 1st-timer's mistake.

Two weeks is a good amount of time for

London and Paris with daytrips,
Venice Florence and Rome, or even
London, Paris, Rome.

What is so important about Lucerne that you would spend 2 days (15% of your time) traveling to/from?

See www.ratp.fr for public transportation in/near Paris.

See www.mappy.com for motor trips.

September is still high season in Paris and Italy. Make your hotel reservations STAT.

Enjoy your visit.

6 cities in 2 weeks is not a very good plan imo. you will spend all your time and money going to and from train stations and airports, checking in and out of hotels, in taxis, planes, and trains. Hardly leaves you any time to do all that shopping!

as ira and suze say - cramming as much as possible into a short time is usually not a good plan. There is <u>absolutely</u> nothing wrong w/ a 2-week trip. Many if not most N. Americans are limited to short vacations. But we still can make a better plan than running around trying to squeeze in too much.

You really need to consider that every time you move from one city/country to another you lose 1/2 to 1 full day (when you figure packing, check out, travel to airport or train station, travel to next city, travel to hotel, check in and get settled)

When you also figure in your jet lag you have cut your actual &quot;sightseeing time&quot; almost in half.

We are not trying to rain on your parade - we are trying to help. Honest.

I like to move around a lot but i now use the base city strategy - doing day trips from a nice base.

Take Munich, i love big cities, especially at night but i love to ride trains and day trip from there to places like Fussen (Mad Ludwig's fantasy castles), Herrenchiemsee castle, Linderhof, etc.

Base city you save time packing, unpacking, getting to hotel in unfamiliar city and you kind of ease into the local culture.

Berlin is another - day trip to Potsdam, Lutherstadt-Wittenberge, Poland for the day, Dresden, etc.

I second the motion of PalenQ. But I prefer smaller cities near the metropoli rather than the big cities. My favorite is Haarlem for visiting Amsterdam.

I would love to hear about similar cities near Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc.

In Jan i stayed some days in Haarlem and hopped not only to amsterdam but other Dutch cities.

I'd stayed in Amsterdam for years and years and i really liked Haarlem - a more real Dutch town and i saved a ton on hotel charges.

Haarlem is a fine fine city

&lt;I would love to hear about similar cities near Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc.&gt;

you won't find any so close and distinct as Haarlem i think

but Paris - Versailles away from the chateau is a great regional town; Chantilly and its famous chateau is near CDG airport and has great rail connections.

and Rome - Orvieto a short train ride away - a great hill town.

or Tivoli, home to Hadrian's Villa and the Villa d'Este is a nice smaller town

or Civitavecchia, where the cruise ships dock - a nice enough seaside town.

or Castelli Romani towns - from Frascati on up to Castle Gondolfo where Pope hangs out in summer

I agree with PQ, Orvieto is only an hour form Rome and a great place to visit.

I can certainly understand traveling such a distance, therefore wanting to experience as much as possible. We took our first trip to Europe fall 2005. I was so excited and couldn't wait to see and experience the places that my family and I had studied about for yrs (we homeschool). Well in 2 wks we visited Paris, Venice, Florence, Rome and sidetrips, Versailles (worthwhile), Siena, Pisa, and Umbria. It was a glorious trip, but guess what I will do differently on this next trip? I think we'll work on 2 cities and a few day trips. I don't regret what we were able to see, but the pace was fast enough that when we asked our children if they would like to return to Europe,my son replied, &quot;I guess so, but this time I'd really like to relax at a cafe and have a really good dessert.&quot;
I like the idea mentioned previously of smaller cities as a base city. Chantilly sounds nice.

Yes whet your appetite perhaps with an ambitious itinerary and then see what you really like and do in-depth subsequent trips.

But if you will never return then i say do it all - better having seen Venice and Rome, etc. for a day or two than not at all!