If you can't find things of interest in London or Paris - I'm afraid your trip is bound to be bumpy.

You still seem to think our comments about travel times/hassles are exaggerated. It is your trip - do what you think will work . . . .

The cities -- but especially Rome will be very crowded over Easter.

"<i> . . . . although that would mean I am missing classes but we'd also be missing the Easter holiday and possible weather issues.</i>" Changing a trip two weeks means nothing re weather. Absolutely nothing. March could be lovely and April could be stormy and freezing -- or vice versa. You won't know which is which until just before your trip.

I've been in Paris in April when it was shirt sleeve weather, and when it sleeted 3 straight days. Same for London.

Moving your trip to later in April will not guarantee good weather. I have gone to Paris, London, and Italy in March before and would happily do so again. Much of what you will want to do, especially in Paris and London, is not weather dependent. Weather in London and Paris is no warmer at that time of year than New York. In Rome, I felt like it was spring in March, but the locals were still bundled up in scarves.

I prefer to go to the nearest destination first, especially if I can get there on a non-stop flight. The flight from the US to Europe is usually overnight, and I'm pretty tired and cranky afterward. I'd rather not extend the period of sleeplessness by taking a connecting flight if I can avoid it.

On the way home, the flight is generally in the daytime, so I am less tired for the connections and the longer travel time.

If your trip is about "sites" rather than experiences, then perhaps your whirlwind approach will work for you. We generally choose to visit countries where the overall culture interests us - food, wine, markets, cafes, architecture rather than a list of top tourist sites.

We can easily spend a week in a small city or town where the everyday lifestyle is pleasurable for us.

alot of people go to places just to say they have been.

I put in another vote that your original idea was waaaay too many places for your time limit, and I'm one of the ones who always gets yelled at for cramming way too much in. Two weeks wiggle room is not going to change the weather to any useful degree.

I think three places is a decent number, but four could be pushing it. Also, keep in mind with a sleeper train that you may or may not actually sleep well on it, leaving you tired the next day. Some people swear by those trains, some people swear at them.

What are you and the person/people you're traveling with interested in and what about a budget? History, art, architecture, theater, food, etc. I adore London and could spend quite a bit of time there between the various tourist sites, markets, and places to day trip to. Places to research to see if you're interested include: The Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, tons of art galleries, British Museum, Churchill War Rooms, a day trip to Canterbury and/or Dover Castle, a day (or couple day) trip to Bath, Stonehenge and Salisbury, various theaters, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, London Zoo, Buckingham Palace and the Changing of the Guard, shopping, and many many more just in London area.

If I was going to work 3 various cities into 16 days, this is how I might split it up: Day 1 - entirely devoted to travel and settling in. City 1 for days 2-5. Day 6 is a travel day, and days 7-10 are in city 2. Day 11 is a travel day and days 12-15 are in city 3. Day 16 is a travel day. Depending on your cities and your interests, you can wiggle it around a bit and spend 5 days in one and only 3 days in another, but you really don't get to see very much that with only 3 days. I saw quite a bit in London in two days, but most people would seriously hate that kind of whirlwind trip.

Two base cities with daytrips of one or two days each could be fun, let you see quite a bit more and be easier on your budget.

I agree that the trip is ambitious, but I admit I never really understood the whole "losing half a day traveling" comments I often see on this board. When we take a train in Europe, we usually take an early train. That means we pack at night before we go to bed. Wake up early, walk to the train station, grab a quick bite to eat and are in our desired location by mid-morning. Sure, it may take a few minutes to drop our luggage at the hotel, but then we are well on our way. We've also taken a later train so that we arrive in the late evening and check into our hotel. This gave us almost the whole day in destination A and the whole next day in destiation B.

With that being said, I would drop at least one location. It is a lot of moving and it does become a blur. I travel faster than many on this board and I too would be exhausted. And by the way, don't be disturbed by the comments on Rome above. I personally love Rome and don't really care for London. We each have our own differing opions. Do what interests you the most.

Good luck!
Tracy