First trip to Europe - Itinerary questions - London, Paris, Italy etc.
 

I'm planning my first and much anticipated trip to Europe for May 2010. I meant to have everything booked by now but here we are, two months before, with nothing done. This is our anticipated itinerary, any help would be appreciated:

May 1-3: London (2 nights)
May 4-9: Paris (6 nights)
May 10-11: Amsterdam (2 nights)
May 12-14: Rome (3 nights)
May 15-17: Florence (3 nights)
May 18-19: Venice (2 nights)
May 20-23: Barcelona (4 nights)

We're planning on flying home on May 25 so there's a bit of flexibility. Can someone please recommend which cities are deserving of more time? Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to spend more time in London due to cost issues, but I do want to know whether it's more worth it to spend more time in Rome vs. Venice vs. Amsterdam...

Looking at the past requests for help, I know the general creed is: see less, stay longer in each city. But it's my first trip to Europe (who knows if there'll be another one?) so I would really like to see all the places I dreamed about in one shot. Putting all my eggs in one trip basket, so to speak.

Thanks in advance!

If you are convinced that you must see this many places, then so be it. Here are my suggested for those two extra days.

I assume you are from North America. Therefore, add one of your extra days to London. Since you've never been to Europe before, you'll have no idea how you will react to jet lag. Adding one of you extra days here will give you more time to actually see London if your first day is a blur of sleepiness.

I'd add you other extra day to Rome.

Depending on whether or not you are interested in Renaissance art, I'd steal a day from Florence and give it to Venice.

If going by train to all those places (and it is feasible and i have done such wide-ranging rail travel often in my 4 decades of European rail travel though many will say too much) then by all means consider some kind of Eurailpass - though some of your stops are far removed from each other so you may be planning on flying certain legs. Anyway if going by train here are some great info-laden sites to learn the ropes of the fantastic European rail system - www.ricksteves.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com; www.seat61.com. You could mix in some overnight trains for the long hauls and save a night's hotel cost as well. Well i do not know if you are planning rail travel if so i could add much more.

Your itinerary sounds just like mine from last year. I know what you mean and try to squeeze as much as you can. I loved London and wish we had more time there-stayed 2 days and it really wasnt enough. It is expensive and the pound conversion sucks.
We stayed in florence the longest but we did a few days trips from there-pisa, sienna and lucca are great. Also check out Cinque Terra, its gorgeous. all easy access from florence. Do visit Versailles Palace from Paris. i think its totally worth it. try and get in early to avoid the long wait. If you are trying to add a day somewhere i think u shud steal from Barcelona. Have a great time

What's the "cost issue" with London? If you are talking about hotel prices - have you considered Priceline? Priceline works great for some cities including London in my past experience. Also good for Amsterdam. Not so good for Paris, Rome, Florence, or Venice, though, I believe.

The thing with Priceline is: if you use the "name your own price" service they don't tell you the hotel til AFTER they accept your price, and then you are locked in - credit card charged, no changes or cancellations. That sounds scary, but the upside is, if you bid smartly you can save an insane amount of money on hotels in some cases. $100 or under a night for a decent (business class) hotel in London and in Amsterdam should be very doable. Check out the website betterbidding.com to see what hotels people are getting in what zones (tip: in Europe, don't bid for less than 4* hotel, and stick to the good zones, don't book something at the airport!). I think $100/night for a 4-star is not out of the question at all with Priceline; I paid something like $75/night back in 2005 for something on Oxford Street in a decent location.

Just don't get too excited your first time using Priceline - pay attention, don't be hasty, don't bid too high too fast, read up first before using it, the BetterBidding site has a lot of info you should read first.

I know introducing something like Priceline into a trip might seem stressful at this point, but I'm assuming the cost of hotels might be a constraint for you anyway.

Anyway, if you can manage the price, I'd probably steal a night from Paris for London; Paris is one of my very favorite cities in Europe, but London really deserves more than two nights especially on a first trip and as your first city (jetlagged, disoriented) on the trip. Many would agree that Venice is deserving of more than two nights also.

Paris - 1
Barcelona - 1
Venice +1

I would actually say -2 for Paris given everything else you want to see, but you must have put it down for 3 times as long as any other place for a reason.

London truly, truly does not have to be expensive. Truly. All you need is a little bit of research (there are several threads just on Fodor's on that very topic). You can eat cheaply very easily. Almost all the major museums are free (though entrance to the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's and the Eye are not). Public transport is inexpensive and you can walk to a lot. There are small b&b-style hotels that can be fairly inexpensive, if Priceline isn't an option for you, and certainly aren't much more than you'd pay in other European cities.

So, assuming I've convinced you, I would absolutely take at least one or two Paris days and add them to London. Aside from the previously mentioned jet lag issues, there is a LOT to see there, and it's a nice place to start your traveling experience, since the language is the same (more or less). Otherwise, remember that you usually lose about a half day when you move places, unless you take late or night trains. Think not only about time on the train or in flight, but also time for checkin, security, transport to/from airports and train stations...

If you very much want to fit in all these places, I'd do something like this. Lots of people would say that this is too busy, and you would definitely be tired at the end.

May 1-4: London (4 nights, 3 full days)
May 4-9: Paris (4 nights, 3 full days)
May 9-11: Amsterdam (2 nights, 1 full day)
May 11-14: Rome (4 nights, 3 full days)
May 14-17: Florence (3 nights, 2 full days)
May 17-19: Venice (2 nights, 1 full day)
May 19-23: Barcelona (4 nights, 3 full days)

My personal bias is to skip Florence and add those days to Amsterdam and Venice, and/or take a day from Barcelona and add it to Amsterdam or London. But that's me. I'm not crazy about Florence and I love London.

Honestly, I'd drop one of the '2 night' places and add the extra time to Rome but if you can't then I like jent's itinerary above.

I'd still steal one night from Florence (it's small) and add it to Rome though.

It's really worth trying to drop one of these cities just to reduce all the travel time between places. Amsterdam and Venice are quite a trek (from and to) the other places on your list. I don't think I could ever justify the time, expense and exhaustion involved in going to either of them for just one day.

Have you thought about apartments in the cities? There are many out there and it would save on the costs of food. Eat lunch out-it's cheaper. Good luck and have fun. Do not forget to take the time to smell the roses!!

You must like big cities. I prefer to spend half of my time in rural loactions or small towns. Have you looked at transport time and costs just in Europe? Too much for me.

The OP has until May 25, so two MORE days than shown in the original itinerary to add to that mix. Here's my preference:

May 1-4: London (3 nights)
May 5-9: Paris (5 nights)
May 10-11: Amsterdam (2 nights)
May 12-15: Rome (4 nights)
May 16-18: Florence (3 nights)
May 19-21: Venice (3 nights)
May 22-25: Barcelona (4 nights)

I think it would be alot easier to answer your question meaningfully if you explain a little bit about your interests.

Thanks for the replies everyone...

I guess I should quantify my preferences: My husband and I are in our late 20s and it's our first time to Europe, so we kind of want to stick with big cities and get a taste of different countries so that if we're lucky enough to go back in subsequent years, we'll know which ones to really focus on and explore.

I'm an art neophyte but am interested in museums and "destinations" as well as just walking around to enjoy the feeling of the city that we're in. I wanted to spend a lot of time in Paris because, well, it's Paris! Plus I would want to do at least one day trip to Versailles. It's also the one city where I don't want to rush around in and really want to be able to feel like I got a good feeling for it.

I was thinking of doing Eurostar from London to Paris to Amsterdam, then flying from Amsterdam to Rome, and training from Rome to Florence then Venice, then flying from Venice to Barcelona. I guess it's a bit hard to determine which cities I'd really like, because I have friends who have gone and said they really liked Barcelona but didn't like Rome or London, etc. Everyone has a different opinion I suppose!

ellenem, I like your itinerary suggestion - I'll definitely give that serious consideration. Andrew, yes, I was going to do Priceline in London, but I did get a bit scared looking at the prices for even crappy hostels... we're in Canada - the conversion to pounds is not a pretty one.

"<i>Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to spend more time in London due to cost issues</i>"

What cost issues? For instance, Paris hotels <i>might</i> run a bit less, but almost every museum/gallery costs quite a bit. In London - most museums and galleries are free. Plus Priceline is brilliant for London. Full service, 4 star hotels for less than $100.

I love LOVE <B>LOVE</B> London -- but honestly, if you are only going to be there 2 nights - I'd skip it altogether and just fly directly on from Heathrow to Paris or A'dam or Rome or where ever. Not being snarky (at all), just practical. Your arrival day will likely be a jet lagged fog so 2 nights there means about 1 day free for seeing London. Instead of trying to run yourselves ragged trying to squeeze in a teensy bit of London, take those two nights and add then to A'dam or Rome.

(I'd personally drop Barcelona and add those 4 nights to London and Rome -- but that is just me)

Alright alright you guys convinced me, more time for London! I guess the conversion rates when I was poking around the hostel rates just made me recoil.

Practicality welcomed here janisj!

Also, thanks for your advice jent103 - everyone here really seems to love London. I think I've been hearing too many horror stories about the horrible accommodations for high prices and I guess some friends of mine didn't really give it rave reviews. Priceline might just save me here...

Glad you like my itinerary. I think it's a good way to include all your choices while taking into consideration that each time you relocate you will lose at least half a day to travel, waiting at terminals/stations, and checking in and out of lodging.

Go to whichbudget.com to see which routes offer better cheap flight options: Amsterdam to Rome then Venice to Barcelona OR Amsterdam to Venice then Rome to Barcelona.

Do give Priceline a shot, then! As I said, I'll bet it would work well for you in Amsterdam as well. (I once used Priceline in Amsterdam but that was way back in 2002.)

London isn't my favorite city on your itinerary, but it's definitely worth three nights if you've never been there. I'd love to go back and visit again.

Since you mentioned hostels, have you heard of the site www.cross-pollinate.com ? They have lodgings in many of the other cities on your itinerary. I used them a few times in Italy. In Venice, I have stayed at the Ca' Maria (an apartment) through them twice - a nice place, for one person a great deal (about $100/night, central location, nice place, kitchen, etc.), a bit more for two - a splurge I guess but in Venice, location is super important (don't stay on the mainland if you can help it!) The website seems to be well-run and their policies are good (you can cancel up to a few days before check-in without penalty).

In Croatia I also used the sites hostelbookers and hostelworld to find places with private rooms/private bathrooms (some hostel-like places of course) - so you could try those as well, if you really want the cheap places. Both seem well run and have lots of helpful reviews.

I've spent a lot of time in London, so I'm a little biased, but count me among those who love it. Personally, I think if you get horrible accommodations for high prices, you just haven't done your research. Searches on here and on TripAdvisor will show you lots of places for a pretty reasonable budget, and that's before factoring Priceline into the equation (try londontown.com too). If you state your specific budget, people can recommend places within it. I stayed at the Morgan Hotel (www.morganhotel.co.uk ) last year, but there are many similar places around.

I'd give London more time than Florence or Venice (at least), especially given the jet lag you'll be feeling at first.

"<i>I guess the conversion rates when I was poking around the hostel rates just made me recoil.</i>"

Actually the $/£ exchange rates are quite good right now. Approx $1.50 = £1. The € is approx $1.35. That does not mean the £ is worse against the $. It can seem pretty confusing - but since £1 doesn't equal €1 you can't make that leap. It mostly depends on what £1 buys in the UK and what €1 buys in France or Italy.

The $ buying power is about the same w/ each currency -- or at least close enough . . . .

Well I live in London and Love it.

Here is a list of sights that are free:
http://www.londontown.com/London/London_for_Free_2008

Also to save money you can easily buy sandwiches in many places (Pret, Eat, Boots, Tesco Express) and eat in parks etc. If you get takeaway you dont pay the 17.5% VAT.

I think it definately warrants more than a couple nights!

Again, thank you everyone for your help. I have another question! We're planning on flying open jaw out of Vancouver, landing in London and flying out of Barcelona. What's the most logical way to handle this? My thoughts were:

London to Paris by train
Paris to Amsterdam by train
Amsterdam to Rome by flight
Rome to Florence and Venice by train
Venice to Barcelona by flight

I've looked at the prices and they really vary wildly, but are quite similar in the end when all are added up. One expensive plane ride is tempered by another inexpensive one. Do you think it's better to fly out of another city to go home (i.e. Amsterdam or Rome) because another itinerary makes more sense?

Again, thank you everyone, this has already been an enormous help!

Since we don't know your home airport, we can't predict which European cities would offer better flight options to you. I suppose the one thing you could check would be if Barcelona is better located after Amsterdam and before Italy as far as connections go.

The other succession of events (train versus airplane) seems logical to me.

How about flying Milan to Barcelona via easyJet (try Kayak's search engine - use "nearby cities")? Train from Venice to Milan is a few hours (then maybe a bit longer to the airport). Do that only if this saves you a lot of money vs. flying from Venice, of course...

London to Paris by train is the easiest way (and I love trains) but Eurostar could be pricey - all depends. Flying could take about the same time but be a lot cheaper on a carrier like easyJet (but be sure to factor in costs of getting from city centers to/from airports).

Train from Paris to Amsterdam - easy, yes.
Trains in Italy - easy and efficient.

My husband and I are in our late 20s and it's our first time to Europe, so we kind of want to stick with big cities and get a taste of different countries so that if we're lucky enough to go back in subsequent years, we'll know which ones to really focus on and explore.>>

hi nand - the flaw in this is that europe is not just about big cities. and by the time you're in your third, you wan't remember what you've seen where, let alone care!

I would forget about Barcelona, and amsterdam, [europe will still be here, and you're still young] and do the following:

May 1-4: London (3 nights) eurostar to
May 4-9: Paris (5 nights) fly to
May 10-13: Venice (3 nights)pick up car, drive to
May 12-19: Tuscany [7 nights] drive to orvieto, deposit car, train to
May 20-25:Rome (4 nights)

this gives you three great cities, and the chance to see the countryside of tuscany. it will be cheaper than all that moving around, especially if you stay in an agritourismo in tuscany. and you can still see Florence by doing a day trip.

and you will have had a holiday!

Annhig's itinerary is similar to trips we've made ... and I think it's the most practical. Getting from city to city is always time consuming.. and you could end up with blurred impressions of all the places you want to see. I didn't start traveling til I was 40 and even so my list of places visited would take too much space here. Don't worry. Once you start traveling you'll be on the road for a long time! (It's addictive -:)

Gee thanks ann.

I am sure the OP is thrilled that you pointed out the "flaw" in her vacation. She didn't ask if Europe was "about" big cities, she didn't ask what what your favourite type of vacation was and she probably doesn't have your poor memory.

You go on and have your own holiday now. There will still be people to boss around when you get back.

2 nights in London is plenty. We flew from Miami to London, spent half day upon arrival, full day next day, and then trained to Paris in the evening on the 3rd day and that was good. Busy but good. 6 nights in Paris is alot. We did 3 nights and that worked...even went to Versailles for a day. I would shorten the Paris trip to 3 nights and add on Lake Como (Bellagio is our favorite) for 2-3 nights. Just train from Venice to Como and fly from Milan to Barcelona. Instead of 3 nights in Florence...maybe do 4 nights in a Tuscany hillside villa and day trip to Florence for a day. Tuscany is beautiful...just rent a car and drive around. Or, yu can stay in Florence and drive for a day or two around Tuscany. Maybe do Chianti area one day and Montalcino/Montepulciano/Pienza/Orvieto the other day.

Pretty funny. Why not scrap the entire plan, which the OP has already told us includes the places SHE always wanted to see, and just go to Turkey, or Greece, or Germany, or some other place someone else wanted to visit?

To say that 2 nights in London is plenty is, I'm so sorry to say, mind blowing. The OP is coming from Vancouver, for cryin out loud.

nandg: dear, go exactly where you want. For me, it wouldn't be enough time in London, which is so much fun that I have had fun there both when I was young, and most recently, now that I'm old. If you like theatre, parks, shopping, markets, and buzzy city life, you might really be able to mine London for some fun. What was it about London that your friends didn't like?

I have friends that don't like Venice. On our last trip to Venice, we spent a week, and never took a day trip out of the lagoon. I had planned on at least one day trip by rail, and never made it. We were having too much fun at the Biennale, which I've seen someone give a bad review to here on Fodors.

So my point is, I guess, stick to your cities if they are your dream places. Try and eliminate 2 night stays as they are generally difficult. You're getting in, and getting out, with hardly anything in the middle.

I might steal one night from Paris, and I might take a night from Barcelona, but you have a couple of extras, so why not just make the 2 night stops into 3 nights instead?

Remember, you are coming from the west coast of North America. It's not an insignificant distance, and this is your first time. You might need that one extra day for a little recovery, even though you are young.

I do like your plans for getting from place to place. I think they are good, or good enough. With such a busy trip, you don't want to knock yourself out on to much minutiae. And time is running short, so get planning!

I will recommend Byron at Budget European Travel as someone excellent to help with rail arrangements. budgeteuropeantravel.com

Gee thanks ann.

I am sure the OP is thrilled that you pointed out the "flaw" in her vacation. She didn't ask if Europe was "about" big cities, she didn't ask what what your favourite type of vacation was and she probably doesn't have your poor memory.

You go on and have your own holiday now. There will still be people to boss around when you get back.>>

aramis - were this from the OP it would be acceptable - from you it is not. it's the OP's first trip to Europe - I'd like her to come back, not go home exhausted, vowing never to return.

if you have any positive suggestions to make, fine. if not...

I will recommend Byron at Budget European Travel as someone excellent to help with rail arrangements. budgeteuropeantravel.com>

I ditto this but he is at budgeteuropetravel.com not budgeteuropeantravel.com - he has an amazing knowledge of european rail - and IME always takes time to do so even if i am not buying anything.

aramis - were this from the OP it would be acceptable - from you it is not. it's the OP's first trip to Europe - I'd like her to come back, not go home exhausted, vowing never to return>

ditto to what annhig retorted to what i also feel was out of order comments - especially to one of the most thoughtful, polite and cerebral posters on Fodor's IMO

when folks first plan their trips they do think mainly of big cities but i also think more of the 'real' Europe lies outside those mega-cities which can be real exhausting and sometimes elbow-to-elbow with other tourists - so a tip like annhig's can be eye-opening to novice itinerary planners - mix in some smaller towns with the mega tourist cities and i guarantee you those smaller less touristed places will be the real highlight of your trip.

gee thanks Pal. can you see my blushes?

it's a very narrow line we tread, those of us who try to be helpful but not proscriptive.

most of us are motivated by a genuine desire to help others enjot exploring europe. a few of us just like bossing others about!

I dearly, dearly hope the young artist sticks to her plan to go where she wants and see the great art capitals of Europe. Florence as a day trip???? It's likely to break her heart as it is she can only spend a few days there.

Personally I pretty much hated London when I first went abroad, since it was very much Paris that spoke to all my artistic dreams and interests. I later got quite interested in London's museums, and now that London is no longer the hidebound insular culture it was, it's more artistically stimulating to go there.

But even with the conversion rates, I still find London un-enjoyably expensive. I don't bother trying to find good food there. I load up on free museums, and pray my hotel won't suck. (I think Priceline less of an answer than most, since so many 4 and 5 star hotels in London are just plain awful).

I've never had a good time in Barcelona and I've no interest in Guadi but I'm fundamentally with Tuscanlifedit:

The OP should go where SHE wants and put her own ideas to the test. She certainly should not be steered by much older suburban people -- and let's face it, that's Fodor's -- who somehow think that cities and art treasures aren't "really" the core of Europe. She's trying educate herself as an artist.

Sorry for my gaudi typo

Palenque & annhig;

You two are a riot. It is not surprising that you have formed a mutual fan club.

You comprise two members of that special group of people who feel that what they think and believe is what everyone should think. You have no authority, or right, to dictate to others what constitutes the "real" Europe. It is not your duty, or right, to In your own twisted way you think that you are setting them "right" by trying to make them see it your way.

Let's imagine someone who has no desire for small town/village life. They would have no interest in visiting anywhere in Europe except the large cosmopolitan cities. According to you two, they are doing it "wrong" and you feel you have the moral and intellectual superiority to tell them so. You cannot "guarantee", as claimed Palenque, that anyone will accept your reality and you are supremely arrogant to think so.

You must derive some sense satisfaction from believing you are correcting the mistakes of lesser individuals and by seeking to have others follow your enchanted advice.

The most amusing part is, you try and justify it as an expression of your benevolence (annhigs' "genuine desire to help others") to those who know less than you.

Annhig - your blushing (how cute!) at Palenque's comments (Ooooh, he called me thoughtful, polite and cerebral - look!) looks like little more than evidence of an overdeveloped need for approval. It is that need for approval that drives some people to try and influence others to do tings their. "Go where I went, do what I do, you will see how good it is!"

Why not give people the advice they ask for or just keep quiet? Some people do ask open ended questions about where they should go, or ask for for critiques of their itinerary. That is the place for that special brand of teaching that you two, and too many others, seem to be unfailingly committed. The majority of responders here understand the difference between those different scenarios.


If your approach wasn't so arrogant, it would just be sad and desperate.



Out of Orderly Yours,


Aramis

Aramis - you said it all --- and - more

but missed the point - folks can suggest things the OP had not planned and it is only pointing out something possible - i saw no 'i am right and you are wrong' in annhig's or my comments.

What you should have said IMO - instead of attacking ann and later me - contradicted the advice to the OP and say why you think only staying in large cities is the way to go and to forget that there is a far different Europe outside them - that is your opinion and who is to say who is right or wrong - and that is exactly what you are doing.

'first-time travelers' often do not realize that it is easy to get out of the big cities and IMO if they do they will cherish these memories even more than the larger cities.

Palenque;

You need to spend more time reading.

I expressed no opinion with respect to the validity OP's travel wishes. The advice I provided in my first post was consistent with the OP's desired itinerary and with her request for feedback on which cities were deserving of more time. My post was "on topic", if you will. My subsequent posts were directed at annhig's and your attempts to instruct the OP to do things they way you like to do them.


Therefore, your assertion that I am doing what I accused you and annhig of doing is utterly baseless. Either you are out bereft of any ideas to support your side of the discussion or you are having difficulty with the entire concept. Since you once again reasserted your unique ability to think and feel for others, it appears that the latter is correct.

Let's look at some quotes now because I like to stay on topic and dealf with facts;

Palenque (recent post); " i saw no 'i am right and you are wrong' in annhig's or my comments."

annhig (1st response); "hi nand - the flaw in this is that europe is not just about big cities. and by the time you're in your third, you wan't remember what you've seen where, let alone care!

annhig (1st response) "and you will have had a holiday!"

What does annhig describing the OP's proposed plans as "flawed" mean to you if not "I am right and you are wrong"? I'm dying to know. What does an assertion that the OP's plans will leave her with no fond memories of her "first and much anticipated" trip to Europe mean to you? And the suggestion that it won't even be a holiday?

Your own first two posts were great - good advice about transportation and a link to a topical travel resource for train travel. There was no insulting of the OP's travel plans and no attempt to redirect when none was asked for. The you posted a defence (well....) of annhig.

Palenque; "I'd like her to come back, not go home exhausted, vowing never to return>

"i also think more of the 'real' Europe lies outside those mega-cities"

"i guarantee you those smaller less touristed places will be the real highlight of your trip."

How you would like her to come home from her trip and the mere fact that you think you can presume how she will come if she follows her plans is irrelevant and drips with condescension. The other comments we have already dealt with.

For the record, I love the large cities of Europe and I love the small cities and towns. I probably spend 75% of my time in small cities, towns, and villages, dividing it equally among those three. There are those who loathe the big cities and toddle from village to village, soaking up the atmosphere (slow travel) while staying in rural B&B's or agriturismos. There are others who jump from capital to capital soaking up museums, fine dining and partying all night. I don't pass judgment on either of those preferences, or anything in between. When someone asks for feedback from the community on how they should spend their time, I certainly reveal my preferences and why so that they can weigh them against the travel styles and experiences of others and try to put it all together and fulfill their personal travel desires.

My fiance and I are in the same boat as you. We have been planning our honeymoon for a year now and finally decided in the last 2 weeks to actually stop talking about planning and start to plan (May 2010 as well!). We WERE originally thinking of traveling all over Europe (France, Amsterdam, Switz, Italy) for 2 weeks with the same thought as you. "We will be so close and who knows when we'll be back so let's see it all!"

I started getting nervous that since my fiance has never been out of the country before he would be overwhelmed and both of us exhausted. I had a feeling if we were in Rome, I would feel obligated to not waste a second....adding to the exhaustion and time crunch. It was very hard but we decided to be brutal in cutting our itinerary down because 1. We are on a pretty tight budget and 2. we only had just over 2 weeks. After reading Rick Steve's books on each city we knew was a 'must see' for us as well as his "Europe Through the Back Door" we decided to focus on Italy as a whole and then jet over to Paris as well. I have ALWAYS wanted to go to Italy. We of course wanted to see Amsterdam, Switzerland and Germany but realized that we wanted to really experience as much of one area as we could at once. After long discussion with him we realized that we both wanted to see Italy....not 'rome' (as Rome is not Italy).

Having said that, it's just something to ponder. You will get so many opinions on here and honestly, if budget is not an issue you can fly by the seat of your pants and find a place to stay anywhere...you have the luxury of not having to stress too much about planning the details of an itinerary. It may not be 'right' in the eyes of 'planners' but if it feels good to you, have a general idea of the places and time frames and just travel away. If we had a month and weren't on a super tight budget I would fly into one city and stay as long as we wanted and book a train or flight out when we were ready to leave. Inter-Europe there are many flights and even more train rides (both cheap). Most Fodorites will tell you this is NOT a good idea, because you dont want to spend your time looking for a hotel, etc...but I tell you what, every one of my friends have traveled in Europe this way (both americans as well as Europeans) and every one has an AMAZING time. Vacations don't have to be about planning...they can actually be about experiences (finding hotels included!). I for one, am not a planner and only wish we had a month to follow our whims. If I had the luxury of being in your shoes, I'd book our main flights to and from Europe, research and have a general idea about flight and train schedules, book my hotel in the first city we landed and go where you want when you want.

This didn't answer a lot of questions, I know. Sorry about that. Bottom line, if you're not a planner and have the budget and time to play....then fly out there and see what you want when you want. My theory on vacationing is that I want to leave a location wishing I had more time to stay, rather than be in a town wishing I was leaving earlier. Plan your trip assuming (not hoping) that you will come back later. If there are things you must see (Paris, for example) ask yourself it you really must see those other locales or just feel like you should because you're so close.

Here are my 2 cents on this crazy lecturing/argument above regarding small cities. My fiance has never been overseas and therefore only wants to see large cities he's read about, seen online, etc. However, when we travel in the US, we often become charmed by small little cute towns that have sweet little bakeries or hole in the wall bars, walking charming 'downtown' areas of small towns. Knowing that, I threw in a few days to Cinque Terre (HIGHLY SUGGESTED BY EVERYONE that has been there....big city lovers and not) for some rest and a slower pace and a slice of Italian life. I also added an extra day to Venice so we can stroll around or take day trips and if we feel like we don't need the 'rest'. Rome and Paris will be go-go-go. If you can see yourself traveling to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Washington D.C. and NYC (or canadian equivalent ;) on a month long trip then you have just verified to yourself that a month full of large cities is great for you. If you cant imagine flying from one of those cities directly from another without a break in between....well, then I think you know what will work best for you.

We believe in seeing a few places well than many places poorly. Since you are young, you will no doubt return to Europe.

Of course, everyone has there favorites. That of course, does not mean they will be yours. There are all exceptional places, each with its own treasures.

You mentioned museums. Here are some ironies. Some of the art is found in the architecture such as in Barcelona and Venice. Madrid has far superior museums than Barcelona, but Barcelona's sense of style is unique. As far as what cities to visit, it would depend on what genres and periods you prefer.

I would eliminate a place or two, you will return and will have something to look forward to. This way you will have a chance to sit at a sidewalk cafe and watch the world pass which is also instructive.

hi nand,

when I was your age, I too went touring with my DH "on spec" staying as long as we liked and then moving on. we even did this in july in France and Italy and always found places to stay, though not always easily. even in florence.

but that was 25+ years ago, and things have changed. you can waste a lot of sight-seeing time trying to find reasonable accommodation. even in May, I don't fancy trapsing round Rome looking for somewhere decent that I can afford. the advantage of small towns is that they are not over-run with tourists and it's a lot easier to find somewhere reasonable. if this style of trip appeals to you, a good compromise might be to book places for either end of the trip, [say Venice and Rome] and busk the middle.