I know a lot of you are probably going to respond and say "It can't be done!" but I want to try. At first my husband and I were thinking of going to Italy for 2 weeks, but he wants to see more. My friend from Amsterdam just came to visit NYC for a week, and he recommended that for my first trip overseas, I should definitely try to see more than one country. I just need some advice on where to begin. I don't want to stay in hostels and do the back-packing thing, but I don't want to stay in pricey hotels either. 2-3 stars I guess. I know it's different for everyone, but I'm trying to get an idea of how much we need to save for this trip. I heard it's cheapest to fly into Germany. We'd either fly out of Newark or JFK. I do not want to see all of Europe (of course THAT can't be done in two weeks), but I'd like to get some advice on what I might be able to see. I was thinking Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam for sure. What else can I see? Any websites or other posts with similar questions? Thanks in advance.

If you actually want to "see" those places I would recommend stopping at those four. That's two full days in each places, plus 6 days for travel to, from, and between your destinations. Obviously your travel days won't be a complete loss, but they're also variable -- flights can get delayed, etc.

If you can get airfare to and from NYC for around $600, keep your hotels to around $100/night (USD), and take three intra-Europe flights, you can probably keep your costs for the whole trip, including food, under $5000.

Hope that helps!

If I would be flying into Germany, would I be able to see a city there? Would it be easier to get one of the Eurail passes to travel around by train?

Ah...the age old question of "how much can I do in 2 weeks". You'll get a pretty broad range of answers on that. I have planned/taken two trips to Europe and both trips involved seeing a lot in 2 weeks.

1st trip in 1999...London, Paris, Wengen (Switzerland), Florence and Rome.

2nd trip in 2006...Athens, Santorini, Venice, Dolomites, Lake Como, Milan and Barcelona.

While I had been to Europe several times in school my wife and the couple that traveled with us on both trips had never been before. We loved the first trip and were happy to see all those big cities in one trip. The second trip didn't work quite as well. We simply tried to do too much in too little time.

What you need to do is really sit down and plan day to day exactly what would be involved in getting to/from all the places you are trying to go. Do you mind spending 1/3 of your time (or more) in travel between cities? On our first trip we used the trains exclusively and so the trips between cities actually was very relaxing.

You will get many replies to this thread saying you are trying to do WAY too much which isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how you like to travel, if you'll go to Europe again, and many other personal particulars. Use train schedules and maps to understand the distance between the cities and be realistic on how much time you'll really be able to spend in each location. Persoanlly for me...I'd try to see less...but then I've been twice and am ready to slow down on the next trip.

If you have never been to Europe before and don't mind a whirlwind trip then go for it...but understand you'll be exhausted at the end and will miss some of those quiet moments you can only find if you sit still in a spot for a while.

Once again...it's all up to you. Either way I'm jealous and hope you have a great time.

if you are determined to do this, then of course it can be done.

first of all, you need to be flying open jaw into your first destination, and out of your last, so as to avoid back-tracking.

THen I would suggest train travel between cities, so that you don't waste time in airports, and can enjoy the scenery in between.

If you can bear it, I would suggest cutting out London ]make the UK a whole trip next time], fly into amsterdam, then train to Paris, followed by Munich?, Venice, Florence and Rome.

Book your accommodation in advance, so you don't waste time looking when you hit each city.

Buy/borrow a good guide book [rick steves makes a good starting point] and find out what you are interested in.

Don't try to create the perfect trip - it doesn't exist!

Have a wonderful time and post a trip report when you get back!

OK...part 2 of my reply. For some reason I thougth you had listed 6 or so destinations...but I think Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam are very realistic. Sounds like a great trip to me.

Thanks for your advice. We would like to see as much as possible, but a reasonable amount. Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam (to see my friend) are a must. Besides those places, I'd like to see whatever else is possible. Maybe some place in Germany since we will most likely fly there first. Maybe Vienna also. Some place in Switzerland? I would ideally like to planto sleep overnight on trains. I've heard that this can be done. I know it will be a whirlwind trip, but I don't know when we'd be able to go again. I'm 24 and my husband is 23. I'm thinking we'd get to go in 2008. Maybe sooner if we can save up? I don't know if we'd be able to for Oct. 2007.

I certainly think it's natural to want to see more than one country in your first trip, and that's easy to do in two weeks. I think your desires are a little scattered because you threw in Rome, which is far away from the others, so I wouldn't do that if I were you. Of course you can do anything like if you you really insist and want to, but what's the point -- a day or two in each place, and then on a plane to somewhere else? Just the travel will waste a lot of time, and it will be expensive, also.

I think London, and Amsterdam are definitely possible, and you could throw in Paris into that without too much logistical trouble (eg, London, Eurostar to Paris, then Thalys train to Amsterdam). Forget the idea of insisting on some particular city in Germany to fly in and out of. Unless you want to see Germany a lot, that doesn't make sense. There are cheap flights to London, it's one of the cheapest places to fly, and Amsterdam isn't that bad either.

I think London, Paris, Amsterdam in two weeks is feasible and forget Rome. Fly into London and out of Amsterdam. That gives you about four days in each city, with the extra in travel time. YOu could fit a day in Brussels into that in the middle as it's right on the way from Paris to Amsterdam, but a lot of people don't have that at the top of their wish list, but it would be another place to see.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Christina...especially since Rome is far away from the rest of your list. I'd do London, Paris, Switzerland and Amsterdam. I love the mountains so the Alps were very appealing to me. So pick one great place to see the mountains for the Switzerland leg. We chose Wengen (up the valley from Interlaken) and LOVED it. In the shoulder season it's not crowded and since no cars are allowed there it's very peaceful. The views are simply incredible from just about every hotel in the town (see http://tinyurl.com/y9v456 )That was similar to the view from our hotel balcony...incredible.

One thing to remember is day trips. You'll probably want to go to Versailles when you are in Paris. That will be most of a day in getting there, seeing it and returning. So 4 places with a few day trips thrown in will fill up 2 weeks quickly.

I can't take Rome out. That's the place I want to visit most of all!

Hm....well then fly into Rome and then see Florence, Paris and Amsterdam.

Or maybe Rome, Switzerland, Paris and Amsterdam.

The problem you have is wanting to see Rome, London and Amsterdam which are all far apart (well London and Amsterdam aren't that far apart...but one is on an island). You need to drop one of those (probably London) and fly into one and out of the other.

yeah, I didn't know that and I guess I agree with wekiva on best possibilities and to drop London. I think it will take more time this way on travel, though.

I have found the fares in to London almost always cheaper than anywhere else in Europe.

You can go/see what ever you want in two weeks. But you also need to know that
1) you lose one days flying each way to Europe.
2) your first day will probably be a jet-lagged stupor.
3) you lose between 1/2 and a full day every time you move from one city to the next (when you factor in all the packing/unpacking, checking out/in and either flying or taking the train)

so now you are looking at 14 days - 2 travel, - 1 first day exhaustion, - approx 2 days total for intra-Europe travel. Leaving a total of 9+ days free for sightseeing/visiting your friend.

So if Amsterdam and Rome are your &quot;musts&quot; - then add at most <b>one</b> other city. Either London or Paris would do. But you can see more of Paris in a short time since it is more compact.

Flying open jaw into Paris and out of Rome; train from Paris to A'dam; fly from A'dam to Rome. This would be a hectic 2 weeks but certainly doable.

For any first-timer taking such a wide ranging trip there is no better a primer than the free European Planning &amp; Rail Guide (free at www.budgeteuropetravel.com) - even if you're not going by rail. I first read about it several years ago in Frommer's Budget Travel Magazine as one of their Top 100 Travel Tips and have recommended it since as have several other Fodorites. For hotels i recommend this forum - Fodorites really know hotels - pose your itinerary and then get tried and true recommendations from folks who've actually stayed in them.

Eurail passes aren't necessarily a good deal. If you're young enough to qualify for the discounted 2nd class pass and you plan to hop on and off the train every day or so, then maybe. (More experienced Eurailers can probably point you to a website that can assess your route and tell you if it would be cheaper to buy separate tickets for each journey.)

Depending on your itinerary, you might be able to save a night's hotel cost (as well as daylight hours that could be better used sightseeing) by travelling at night by train (e.g. Paris to Italy).

A number of airlines (including but not limited to discount airlines) now offer cheap one-way tickets. This facilitates the kind of trip you want to make, where you want to see different parts of Europe but want to visit major cities (with good air connections). But be careful with discount carriers. They sometimes use out-of-they-way airports or arrive or land at hours when public transportation isn't available. Make sure you check the cost of getting to and from the airport and confirm that you can do it on public transportation at hours that suit your flight.

Southern Spain can be relatively inexpensive; it's worth considering a trip there if you plan to go outside the brutally hot months of July and August. Barcelona (a fabulous city) is more temperate in its climate, but not as inexpensive as Andalucia.

You seem to be aiming exclusively for capital cities. These are likely to feel more &quot;internationalised&quot; and more touristy and are often more expensive than secondary cities in the countries you want to visit. Consider making one of your stops somewhere off the beaten tourist track. (And some of these secondary - or tertiary - cities are served by the discount airlines, making them a transportation bargain, too.)

Discuss and then agree with your husband on what you want to splurge on and where you're willing to cut corners. For example, you might agree to splurge on a special, higher quality than average hotel in a special place for one night - in exchange for staying in a hostel (or a zero star) hotel for 2 nights. Some cities are better bets for cheap hotels than others, and some cities are worth &quot;small splurges&quot;. For example, I don't see a great difference in hotel quality in London between the hotels I pay 70 euros a night for and those I pay 150 euros a night for. But in Bangkok, I got a spectacular room in a grand hotel (on the executive floor) for US $125. The same quality would have cost me at least US$600 in London. So I don't splurge on London hotels; I save my money for Bangkok.

Another balancing act. Scout around for good value breakfasts (inexpensive coffee, standing up at the counter in a nearby cafe, instead of overpriced hotel breakfasts), buy picnic provisions in the local market - and then went you want to splurge on a special meal, go for lunch instead of dinner.

When I'm jetlagged and am visiting a city I've never been to before, I often splurge on a cab to my hotel - but I make a bargain with my husband that we'll take public transportation back to the airport. Or, alternatively, we take cheap public transit on landing (because I'm not stressed about catching a flight) and then take a taxi to the airport.

I'm trying to recap in my mind what your &quot;musts&quot; are. You say you have two weeks...does that include travel from/to the U.S.? If so, you only have 12 touring days.

And Rome/Amsterdam are musts?

Also, from NYC I wouldn't consider Germany &quot;the cheapest alternative&quot;. Aside from possible sales, London &amp; Amsterdam should be the least costly.

Have you considered that moving around from country to country adds a lot to the trip cost? At current exchange rates I agree that $5,000 is a good starting point.

PS:
If I HAD to be in Amsterdam, I would not do Rome in the same 2-wk trip. Save it for when you can do an Italy trip like you originally planned. This is a &quot;travel advice&quot; forum---listen to them. There is a <i>good reason</i> most posters discourage overly ambitious itineraries.

Signed:
ONE WHO TRIED TO DO TOO MUCH ON 1st TRIP AND REGRETTED IT.

A lot of people have told me that flying into Germany is the cheapest, but if flying into either London or Amsterdam is in a similar price range, that would be much better.

What about this?
Fly into London, then go to Amsterdam, then Paris, then down to Venice and fly out of Rome? Or London then Paris then Amsterdam followed by Venice and Rome?

I think Janis has a pretty good idea, but I'd change it a little. First, perhaps it is because I don't live there, but I wouldn't say that you can see more in Paris than in London in a few days because of city size. I think central London for first-time tourists, and what they want to see, is quite compact and you'd see just as much as Paris.

However, if I were going to do Amsterdam, Paris and Rome, which sounds okay, I wouldn't fly into Paris but Amsterdam. I don't think there are good cheap flights from Amsterdam to Rome (or vice versa), but there are cheap flights to/from Rome and Paris or London. So, I think flying into Amsterdam, train to Paris, and then flying to Rome from Paris (eg., on Easyjet) would be fine. I know there are cheap flights from London to ROme, also. Maybe KLM has some cheap flights to Rome, it's possible, but I don't think any budget airline works that route.

Your plans sound like our first trip to Europe 30 years ago when we were your age. I wanted to see everything - but I remembered almost nothing. So we returned to some of the same places a couple of years later, slowed down the pace, &amp; we fell in love with Europe. We've been back every year since then &amp; now spend 2 months there every year.

One thing you might want to consider is to reduce the number of big cities - Paris, London, Rome, Amsterdam might be too much concrete/congestion/noise all back-to-back. Throw in a little countryside to break things up. Don't know if I would do Switzerland in October. We were last there in mid-Sept a few years back, &amp; it was quite cold &amp; snowy.

I think a perfect plan to see Europe for the first time would be fly to Amsterdam &amp; visit your friend. Get aquainted with European travel/customs with some help of a &quot;local&quot;.

Then fly to Florence &amp; visit this wonderful city. Rent a car &amp; then tour the fantastic countryside of Tuscany - small villages, rolling hills, wineries, history, etc. Then drop the car off in Orvieto(stay the night, perhaps), and take the train to Rome for a visit &amp; flight home. If you want another destination - add in Venice before Florence - perhaps the most romantic &amp; unique city in Europe.

I'll go against the grain here &amp; advise you NOT to visit London or Paris. Both of those cities really need at least 4 days. We often go to them in the early spring or fall for a short &quot;get-away&quot; when the airfares are low, and there are fewer tourists. From the East Coast, London &amp; Paris are not much farther away than San Francisco (where we live).

Stu Dudley

Hey, Stu.
I agree with dropping Paris if Italy is a must. This would make a good trip:

AMSTERDAM - 2 nights
Fly to VENICE--3 nights
Train to FLORENCE--3 nights
Train to ROME --4 nights
Fly out of Rome