sandy49

We are planning our first visit to Europe in early summer 2013. We will take about 15-18 days.

We have traveled a lot in the US and usually plan our trips based on guide books and internet information. That usually works out very well but I am not sure I could do that effectively in Europe.

The cities/areas I would like to see are:

Amsterdam
Munich/Rhine River area
Venice
Rome
Florence (?)
Lucerne
Paris

Currently, we are looking at escorted tours, as we thought that might be the best since it is our first time. My husband is not keen on this trip; so my reaction is to see as much as possible in case he does not want to return.

However, some have suggested that this itinerary we would be spending a lot of time on the bus. This particular tour is 14 days, with two nights in Amsterdam, Venice, Rome, Paris and one night in Rhineland, Munich, Florence, Lugano & Lucerne.

For a first trip, would it be better to focus on fewer cities, maybe Rome & Paris, with Lucrerne in between, and focus on that.

We enjoy beautiful scenery, would enjoy seeing a castle, The Coliseum, St Peter's Square, the fountains would be great to see in Rome. In Paris we would like to see the Eiffel Tower, Louver, and the other "top attractions" of these cities.

Based on your experiences, any suggestions would be most welcome.

Sandy

bobthenavigator

If you try this itinerary I can asssure you he will not return, nor will you. Much too harried.
Plan a max of 5 destinations for this trip and pay attention to travel time betwwen them. I would fly into Paris and home from Rome and skip Amsterdam. Perhaps:
Paris---4
Fly to Venice--3
Florence---3 [with day trip to Siena]
Rome--5

That is a start.

elnap29

I totally understand how overwhelming it is to plan a first trip to Europe. There is so much to see and do! We have been only twice now, but after our trip last year, we finally recognized that less is more. We chose 4 destinations for an 18-day trip (including returns to both Rome and Paris) but for next time we will not select more than 3. I think 4 would be the maximum.

Definitely narrow your focus. Your husband may have a chance to enjoy himself if you go at a relaxed pace. Going on our own (not on a tour) was surprisingly easy for us, so don't be afraid of it. High tourist areas are easily navigated as so many people speak English, although learning a few phrases of politeness and courtesy is helpful.

suze

I would cut that list in half for the time you have. It's easy to plan on your own if you have a reasonable itinerary (like the 1st post suggests).

If you want to do a tour, there's nothing wrong with that, but for me personally I would hate the structured days and being around a big group of people all the time. I'm thinking this wouldn't make your husband any happier, than going at your own pace!

nytraveler

With that itinerary assume you will spend about 2/3 of your waking time sitting - or napping - on a bus. It covers so much territory there is no other way to do it.

When considering a tour there are some specifics yuo need to know:

Most starts are 7 am luggage packed outside your door and 8 am on the bus

When considering what you will see read very carefully: "view" means you will see something out the bus window as yuor drive by; "stop" means you will get a 5 minute photo op in front of something; only "visit" means that you will actually go inside - and then i might not be for very long

Hotels are often in distand suburbs - so "free time" may be illusory - since yuo have to fiure out how to get to what you want to see

Provided meals re least common denominator and often americanized versions of local cuisine instead of the real thing

There are "optional" tours - often at very high prices - to see major sights

If you are comfortable planning yourself you can have a muchmore enjoyable vacation for les money. But you will need to sticl to no more than 3 places (cities/areas - not countries). Every place you hae mentioned is a major tourist destination with extensive tourist infrastructure and its very easy to get along speaking only English - you just need to do the advance work to know what you want to see/do.

For a first-timer I would start with London, since it will lessen the initial culture shock - and follow with wahtever two other places you want to see most (keeping in mind your budget - Switz is gorgeous but VERY expensive - even to othe europeans)

It sounds like your husband might be happier seeing what he really has an interst in than being hauled around with 40 others, some of whom are almost always a big fat PIA

If you tell us what his interests are we might be able to reco a couple of places/things he would enjoy.

Christina

I can understand your apprehension, as I felt the same way the first time I went abroad. I had never traveled anywhere except Canada outside the US until I was around thirty. And this was pre-internet, so things were really a lot more mysterious and difficult to do on your own back then. But I was traveling alone, and deliberately chose a tour that was fairly unstructured so there was a lot of free time (hardly any included meals, for example, except breakfast) as even then, I knew I basically wanted a group for the arrangements and logistics (and maybe finding some dinner companions), but didn't want to have to be with them all the time. It worked out very well and I enjoyed it a lot, and got my feet wet so that later I ventured out on my own. Some of those tours can make things very easy if you move around a lot and handling baggage, special tours, etc.

So I have a couple suggestions. First, your itinerary is too much in too short a time. It doesn't sound enjoyable at all, I think your husband will hate it, I hate it myself and would simply refuse. As for your intinerary and spending lots of time on a bus, I don't know what that means. That sounds impossible to me, is this a real tour itineary? Because I didn't think real tours would even do that itinerary and have it all be by bus (even when I did a couple tours, they had some train/plane arrangements between the farthest places). Those places are too far apart to do them by bus in two weeks, I think. I mean not that it wouldn't be enjoyable, which it wouldn't but that I don't think it would even be possible.

I suggest you book a package as a mid-way between a tour and do-it-yourself. There are lots of good ones. They handle the major arrangements for hotels and transportation, but not all the restaurants, etc. Some may have an introductory tour in a city. I think that is a good solution for you. Find a good package and limit it to maybe 3 cities. www.go-today.com has some, for example, there are other good companies, I just know somebody who took one of those and liked it. http://www.go-today.com/

PatriciaOne

I'd do London and France with equal time in each. Arrive in London and get settled. You'll have no problem with the language and you can easily do the hop-on-off bus trip for a full day of London. Get tickets for the London Eye, Hampton House, Greenwich, check out walking tours, do a couple of plays at night.
Take the Chunnel...hubby should like that. Rent a car and do Normandy, and drive up to Mont. St. Michel. Turn in car and take train into Paris for three days of touring. Return to London and fly home. We had no problem driving in France but I would not drive in Paris.

denisea

It is very common to want to get in as much as possible...that will almost certainly ruin your trip.

Don't spend your time on trains and en route to the next destination. That will ensure your husband will not want to go back.

You might consider spending the entire trip in Italy. With the time you mentioned, you could see a lot in Italy without too much traveling in between sites. You might be able to end in Munich and fly out of Munich and fly into Rome.

I do like the London and Paris idea,as well. Great cities and the Eurostar between the two cities is the easiest way to travel between the two. Both cities offer great day trips as possibilities to see more than just the city you staying in.

You will have a much better time if you limit the number of countries you try to visit. Try to see too many and end up seeing nothing.

charnees

By the way, the tour takes two nights in each city? that amounts to ONE DAY! Instead, on your own, fly into Amsterdam, spend three nights (2 days), train to Paris, spend 5 nights (4 days), including a day trip to Versailles, to see a really astonishing castle. Take the plane or overnight train to Venice, stay four nights (3 days), train to Florence for three nights (2 days), train to Rome for the rest of the time. You can take a day trip from Rome to see Ostia Antica which is a Roman ruin only about an hour's total trip from central Rome, and is a good substitute for Pomepii, which is a long 12 hours trip by train. The only difference is that Ostia Antica was not buried by lava, but is still a substantial look at some ruins. Depending on how you move between Amsterdam, Paris, and Venice, this should take 14 or so days. Do not try to "just add in" another destination, or you will soon be on the run the whole time you are in Europe! Moving from one place to another is a huge time-burner.

Check out staying in apartments if you want to keep costs down and have more room to move around when you get back from big sightseeing days. many are available for as little as three days. Google apartment rentals - Amsterdam or - Paris or -Rome etc. Some sites are VRBO.com, sleepinitaly.com, ItalyPerfect.com.

DO get a guidebook for each of the cities listed!!! Try Rick Steves, who has simple guidebooks that are good for newbies in Europe. One advantage is there will be MAPS in the books, with indications of where the various areas are in relation to the historic centers of each town.

This is quite doable on your own. You will find Holland is very bi-lingual in English, which makes adjusting to jet lag and to Europe easier. Paris pretty good for English, and the Italian tourist destinations are good, too.

ira

Hi S,

>we are looking at escorted tours, as we thought that might be the best since it is our first time.
Not necessarily

>My husband is not keen on this trip; so my reaction is to see as much as possible in case he does not want to return.

Those are probably the reasons why he isn't keen on this expedition.

>This particular tour is 14 days, with two nights in Amsterdam, Venice, Rome, Paris and one night in Rhineland, Munich, Florence, Lugano & Lucerne. <

Not going to Belgium on Tuesday?

May I suggest that 18 days would make a very nice visit to London (+ some of the UK) and Paris?

I recommend this plan to newbies because
a) they speak a reasonably understandable form of American in the UK and the signs are clearly understood (mostly).
b) by the time you have done a week in the UK, you will have gotten over your trepidation about visiting Europe
c) you can plan and execute the trip yourself and won't be tied to having your luggage outside the door at 07:00.

If that doesn't appeal, I suggest

Fly into Venice 4 nights, train to Florence 4 nights (visit Siena and Pisa), train to Rome 5 nights (visit Orvieto and Ostia Antica), fly to Paris 4 nights, fly home.

You could also spend the entire time in Italy.

Either of these itineraries are easily planned and easily executed.

Save the Northern countries for another trip.

Have fun planning and enjoy your visit.

ssander

I concur that you are trying to visit too many places.

Paring it down is a matter of taste and the preceding posts have many good ideas. Mine (5-7 days in each of three base cities):

Fly to London
Eurostar to Paris (less than 3 hrs)
Train (Overnight sleeper?) to Rome
Fly home from Rome

Both London & Paris have exceptional opportunities for train day-trips - you could choose 2 or 3 good ones in each city.

From Rome Florence is only 1:40 by train - you can do an overnight and essentially get 2 sightseeing days there with an early-morning departure and after-dinner return the next day.

IMO this is a good first trip to Europe.

SS

mamcalice

You will probably find the Fodorites will have two main observations about your preliminary itinerary. (1) You have too many destinations for the amount of time available. (2) Since you have planned trips in the US, you can plan your own trip to Europe - it is part of the fun.

I would suggest one of two possibilities: Amsterdam, Munich/Rhine, Paris or Venice, Florence and Rome. Most of either trip can be done by train. If you choose such an itinerary, fly into your first city and out of your last. With 4-5 days in each city you will have time for a day trip in some locations.

Happy plannning.

dugi_otok

Hi Sandy
Based on what I know of you from this post and other posts
(your husband is not so keen,your reluctance to plan the site seeing and logistics-transportation, hotels,etc., you like walking, scenery-like Alaska and the Pacific northwest), I would recommend a Rick Steves tour.
Rick Steves tours eliminate the objections written by nytraveler (above). There will be bus rides but with fewer and more enjoyable travel companions, nice lunch stops on long drives.I like the idea of seeing small villages, scenic locations , in addition to the major cities.We want your husband to want to return, this might be your best bet.
There are two that look good
20 Nights
Amsterdam(2)
Rhine village(2)
Medieval Rothenburg(1)
Tirolian village(2)/Bavaria
Venice(2)
Florence(2)
Rome(2)
Cinque Terre village(2) Italian coast
Swiss Alpine village(2)
Burgundy small town(1)
Paris(2)
http://tours.ricksteves.com/tours/be...europe-21-days

Rick Steves also has a 13 night tour which would allow to add some nights to Paris(start) and Rome(finish).
http://tours.ricksteves.com/tours/be...europe-14-days

Have fun!

tailsock

it's unfortunate that your husband doesn't share your thirst for new adventures abroad. Maybe a slow pace itinerary in 2 or 3 places will change that? London>Paris>Amsterdam is totally doable in 3 days span and all you have to worry about (besides the public transportation) are 2 high speed trains and the flight home.

sandy49

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. They were very helpful.
My husband is not against any specific itinerary; he would be content to stay in the US but seeing the Swiss Alps is on my "bucket list". Not sure if we will actually get to Switzerland but seeing anything in Europe will be a wonderful experience.
Almost everyone pointed out that we are trying to do too much in too short a time span. I will take this seriously and will narrow this trip down to 3 cities, 4 at the most.
Thanks to everyone who encouraged me to try it on our own without an escorted tour.
Christina, thank you so much for mentioning the go-today.com. It seems to be a nice compromise with help getting from city to city but we can decide how long we want to stay in each city, and what we would like to do when we are there.
Dugi, thanks to you too for the suggestion of Rick Steeves tours. They also have a "Europe Your Way" that I am going to check out.
Thanks again.

AisleSeat

I know everyone has their own list but IMHO the big three are London, Paris and Rome. You can make a great trip out of one, two or three of those. The next tier, if you have time include Munich, Amsterdam, Venice, Florence, Barcelona, Vienna, Prague and all the rest.

You can have a wonderful trip by concentrating on 2-3 of you own favorites. Look at the itenearies of some of the Big Bus companies to get ideas. Have fun planning.

cferrb

I would just say that if the Swiss Alps are on your bucket list then you should make sure to see the Swiss Alps.

greg

If seeing the Swiss Alps is on your "bucket list," why would you not put that at the top of the priority and wrap other cities around it? The place to go is Berner Oberland area, specifically stay in one of the high mountain village like Wengen. Rick Steves' Switzerland guidebook has an extensive coverage of this region targeted to first timers.

You can include some France/Germany and some Italy. You would want a multi-city flight to eliminate unproductive day backtracking to the starting city that comes with a round-trip type of flight arrangement.

Adding more countries/cities adds complexity to the planning process and the execution. So it is a tradeoff.

bilboburgler

I just saw the Rick Stevens IT and I think that is too rushed. If was looking at this for the first time and I saw your orig IT I would do
fly into Amsterdam, they speak a lot of English (Ira really!) there and even the accent is vagually mid-atlantic. Get used to a different culture
Go south by train to the Alsace region on the "Rhine" then again by train to
Paris. There is an overnight to Florence or Venice
Florence
Venice
Rome, fly home