KTtravel

I love Switzerland but agree with the others that you should skip it this trip as you barely have time for the three terrific places you already have picked.

I think you and your fiancee should decide that Switzerland will be your top priority for your next trip. Perhaps on a honeymoon?

StCirq

<<Don't let someone convince you 'sure this is doable -- it is a terrible idea.>>

Especially if she's never done a trip like this. How would she know?

Skip it. You'll be glad you did. Especially if you actually want to get married. There's nothing like bad travel experiences to sour a relationship.

KTtravel

You might want to remind your fiancee that traveling between locations really eats up the majority of a day and adds to the costs. Day 1 will really be a blur as you will arrive, perhaps get a bite to eat and do a short stroll and then will probably want to make it an early night.

I would now suggest:
Day 1 arrive
Rome 4 days
1 day travel to Paris
4 days Paris
1 day travel to Amsterdam
3 days Amsterdam
Depart

This leaves you with one day to spare which you can add on to either of the above three locations or use to take a day trip. As you can see, you have a tight trip as it is.

You can switch out which city you do after Rome, either Paris or Amsterdam. I would price which airline ticket prices and flight times work best for you.

PalenQ

<<Don't let someone convince you 'sure this is doable -- it is a terrible idea.>>

IMO it is doable and if you go for just a day to a place like the Interlaken area then you will at least see the majesty of the Swiss Alps - you may never get back.

Don't let anyone say it is not doable - not ideal but as I outlined above very doable.

Elder Fodorgarchs just can't seem to remember when they were young - you're young go for it.

StCirq

<<you're young go for it.>>

Yes, and you're young....you'll go back.

Fiancée's mom is going too. She might qualify as one of those "Fodorgarchs," as you stupidly call them.

Sassafrass

KTtravel's itinerary is excellent. If you do that, and find you did all the sightseeing you wanted a day early, you could do a great daytrip from any of these places.

There are many beautiful small towns near Amsterdam, easy by train.

Versailles is right in the edge of Paris. Other places an hour or so away.

From Rome, there is Orvieto, Naples, Tivoli, a beach, even Florence could be done as a daytrip.

lisave9

i think you should travel by plane if you are able to find relatively cheap tickets. I went on a europtrip this summer and I took the train from Groningen to Hamburg from Hamburg to eisenach from eisenach to Frankfurt from Frankfurt to Luxembourg from Luxembourg to Paris and from Paris to Amsterdam. The trains were extremely expensive and Inconvenient, especially if you have heavy bags. It is worth to pay a little bit extra for a plane ticket then take the train.moreover, At the end of my trip I found a lot of plane tickets that were cheaper and faster than the trains I took. The train stations were very hectic and a lot of beggars might ask for money and it is difficult to buy the train tickets. Perhaps you can take the train from Italy to Switzerland or from city to city within a country a few times but do not take the train for all your destinations.

The reason I mentioned all the places I went to is to explain that 15 days is enough to visit All the countries you want as I visited all those cities in 17 days. I saw most of the cities in 2 full days, a third day may become boring. Although, it depends on which city you visit. For Paris, I would recommend 5 days and 4 days for Amsterdam. Within 15 days, the best would be visit around 3-4 cities if you go to the capitals and maybe 4-5 cities if you go to the small cities.

StCirq

Regarding lisave9's post:

Trains are not expensive at all. If you buy them from the right people at the right time, there are extraordinary bargains. The Man in Seat 61 website tells you how to do that.

It often takes as much, or more, time to take a plane than a train. Trains go direct - city to city. Planes involves getting to an aiport with a couple hours to spare, going through security, and upon landing getting into wherever you're going. Very tedious and can be way more expensive than trains.

It is not difficult to buy train tickets. I can't imagine where that notion came from.

I'm guessing lisa has taken one trip and didn't thoroughly research it. It's true that there are low-cost airlines throughout Europe; that doesn't mean they are always the best option.

KTravel has given you an excellent itinerary.

PalenQ

Plus with trains you see more than a few cities and airports - you see the lay of the Europe in between - to me sometimes better than the actual destination.

and as St-Cirq says trains need not be expensive.

suze

<a third day may become boring>

You can see why this kind of planning is very personal!

No way would I ever be bored by the 3rd day in a major city of Europe. Just not going to happen.

PalenQ

Yes the old Fodorgarch mantra you must spend several days in each stop or it ain't worth it.

Like suze says this is personal and folks should not extrapolate their own travel style automatically to others - like saying "don't let anyone tell you this is doable" -maybe not the best thing but make up your own mind that suits your travel style - yes it would be sweet to stay several days in each place but some folks like to see more places with fewer day stays.

twk

Pal:

I've got no problem moving around on a trip, but, opinions having been solicited, mine is that fitting Switzerland into this type of a trip is a mistake. The primary reason I say that is that unless you actually get up into the mountains, you're missing out on the best of Switzerland, and if you do go up into the mountains, you need to have several days to work with as weather may keep you from actually seeing anything if you happen to be there only a very short time.

When you go to Paris for 2 days, you can draw up a list of sites to see and know that you'll be able to see them come what may with regard to the weather. But, when you decide to spend 2 days in Switzerland, your ability to see the mountains is contingent upon the weather. If you've got a low cloud deck, you can go up in the mountains and it's like flying an airplane in instrument conditions--there's just nothing to see.

The other factor is that Swiss rail prices are cheaper if you can stay longer. On really short trips, you can't justify even the half-fare card, so that means you're paying full sticker price for Swiss rail trips--which leaves you less money to spend elsewhere.

So, I still say, take the days that you were planning to spend in Switzerland and spend them elsewhere on this trip. There's no shortage of options.

PalenQ

twk makaes salient points about the fickle weather in the Alps - places can be clouded in or rain for days so it is a crap shoot so I agree with twk on that.

But not on this:

(in a few days) you can't justify even the half-fare card, so that means you're paying full sticker price for Swiss rail trips - with the Swiss Transfer Ticket plus in conjunction with it buying a half-off Half-Fare Card it could save a lot of money on say a trip from Italian border to say Grindelwald and then out to another country border like Austria or Germany or France.

The Jungfraujoch trip - the one most take - from Interlaken costs over $200 alone so a Half-Fare Card nearly pays for itself on that alone - especially if you buy it with the Swiss Transfer Ticket.

twk

True enough on the Jungfrau, but if you're in Switzerland two days, and both of them are rainy, so much for your Jungfrau trip.

PalenQ

Yes again the danger of planning a few-day trip to say Zermatt to see the Matterhorn or to the Jungfrau Region to do the Jungfraujoch -could be a total wash out - I agree.

If you cannot do more than a few days in your Alpine dreamland forget it.