Help with itinerary for 1st trip to Europe!
 

Hello everyone,

I have been browsing this forum recently and figured I'd just post for some help. It seems the main theme of these post is DO NOT cram too much in at once. This is understandable, but hard to accept! I've tried to limit us a bit.. but would love some advice for our trip in September 2019. We are young and honestly, I get bored easily and prefer to be on the move. So just tell me HOW crazy I am and if this is by any chance doable :)

Top 2 cities that we REALLY want to see this trip are Barcelona and Rome. Initial plan was to fly into and out of each of these, but after flight searching there are cheaper flights out of Milan, so keeping that as a possibility as well.

Day 1: Arrive AM Barcelona
Day 2: Barcelona
Day 3: Barcelona
Day 4: Fly (?) to Nice
Day 5: Nice
Day 6: Train (?) to Florence
Day 7: Florence
Day 8: Train to Rome
Day 9: Rome
Day 10: Rome
Day 11: Flight home (Milan vs Rome)

If Milan is significantly cheaper, any ways to reorganize the trip?

>>> Thought Nice might be good to check out some wineries and the beaches.
Did you actually researched this or just came up with the idea? There are some wineries in Nice, but not near the city. The beaches there are pebble beaches. Is this what you are willing to consume three calendar days out of nine full days?
If Barcelona and Rome are your destinations and flying home from Milan is what you want, then, fly Barcelona to Rome, then train one way heading north. Then Florence is on the way and you don't consume a day going south only to back track to Milan.

In case you have not researched "wineries", the large area south of Florence is a premier wine growing region producing vast quantities of notable red wines. You do not have to consume three calendar days for a visit.

Florence is not only about renaissance art. It also has renaissance architectures. I like art, but I don't spend 4 hours at any museum. I am not a museum person in my home city. They are small, expensive, and boring. However, I do not blindly extrapolate from my home city experience that all other museums around the world are like that.

I think more research is in order. One doesn't go to Nice for wineries, nor for the beach. Florence is all about the Renaissance - if that doesn't interest you, I'd skip it.

Frankly, with only 10 days at your disposal, I'd fly into Barcelona and out of Rome, or vice versa, and call it a day. You can always take a daytrip.

Visit Barcelona and Tarragona and board then a Rome (resp Civitavecchia) bounded low cost plane or cruise ferry. If you take the latter, you may stop over in Sardinia or do a day trip from Civitavecchia to Giglio Island in order to find nice sandy beaches.
Or go from Civitavecchia to Tarquinia if you are interested in Etruscan stuff.

The train ride Rome - Milan airport takes 4 1/2 hrs. Change at Milano Centrale. Trains every 30 min until 7pm. Web fares start at 45 EUR/50 USD if you book well ahead.

Ignore the “less is more” advice. Although it works for most, it’s not for everyone. There are plenty of cruise passengers who spend 8 hours in a major city/location and feel they see enough. Google itineraries for 24, 48, and 72 hours at each location, and it will give you an idea of things to see and do for limited times. If you eliminate museums and perhaps cathedrals, you can easily get a “vibe”, walk the major areas, see architecture and eat.

Look at Easy Jet. They have inexpensive and quick flights between all the cities you list. Skyscanner.com is a great source for flights. Our daughter had a week to see Barcelona and Nice in 2017. We ate well AND visited museums, even had a day trip in a rented car north of Barcelona. There is plenty to see via train from Nice (Antibes, Cannes to the west and Villefranche, Eze, Cap Ferrat, Monte Carlo, and Menton to the east).

You sound like you might even get bored in Rome after a couple days. Our first two visits there (we've been back a half dozen times for longer visits) a number of years ago were only two partial days, and we saw a lot including museums.

If you reduced the Rome time, you could fly to Venice or take the train to Milan (it's only three hours). A lot of people don’t enjoy Milan, which is a more modern city, but there is plenty to see and do outside of Milan and trains are plentiful in and out.

I often take cycling holidays where I stay only one night in a city, however, I don't really see the point of going to Barcelona for fewer than 3 nights and to Rome for fewer than 4. There is so much to see, so many people to interact with and such great food to try.

I'd probably fly between the two but if I decided to take the train, while Nice is nice enough, it is not in the same league as Florence, Milan, Turin etc which are each glorious in their own way, but it is worth looking at the rail lines and seeing which is easy to get to.

I'm with StCirq. I would never attempt such an itinerary personally, but if you fly into Barcelona, stay a few days, do day trips, etc. then get a cheap flight to Rome, do day trips from there, and then fly out of Rome, there will be plenty to keep you busy and lessen the issue of travel and checking in and out of hotels. While Whitehall is right, people on cruises enjoy just popping in on a city for the day, they need think about nothing else: They leave the ship, mess around, and pop back on for meals, sleep, etc. Not quite the same thing as trying to travel on your own to a new spot every day or two.

Right. I see little point in comparing a trip such as this with a cruise, where people don't even have much of a choice as to how to spend their meager time on land.

Of course, I wasn’t comparing this proposed trip to a cruise. My point was the OP says he is satisfied with “walking through each city and taking it all in.” That part may be similar to the day-time experience of a cruise passenger.

The OP told us about himself and asked if his proposed trip was do-able: ”I get bored easily and prefer to be on the move. So just tell me………if this is by any chance doable.”

Responses like “one doesn't go to Nice for wineries, nor for the beach” aren’t helpful. Especially when some people DO go to Nice for the beach. And, I recall someone in my family once visiting a couple of vineyards while on a trip to Nice. Telling them what WE might prefer is not necessarily responsive to someone who “prefers to be on the move.”

Just to be clear, I didn't say any of those things, except the part about cruise passengers. The OP is welcome to do as he or she pleases, of course. But it is their first trip to Europe, and those who are well versed in such things would be remiss to not point out certain factors. Transportation doesn't always run on time. Taking the train from one city to another for a couple of days means getting to and from the stations, getting checked in, etc. Perhaps "being on the move" means different things to different people. At any rate I wasn't trying to be offensive, but trying to point out that if they plan to be on the move all the time, they will not be enjoying much of anything for 8 hours straight. But - I could be wrong! Peace, at any rate.

10 days and 2 cities you are interested in - Barcelona & Rome - just go to those. You'd have about 4.5 days in each after you subtract time traveling between them.
Hardly enough time to be "bored"! :-)

Just how much cheaper is using Milan? If you don't want to go there, it may be a false economy.

>> I felt they were “on the way” to Rome<<

When flying 'on the way' is pretty much irrelevant. If one was driving or taking trains, then a more or less linear route makes sense. But airport to airport -- it makes no difference. Since Nice does not have the things you assumed (Wineries, beaches, etc) there is no reason to go to Nice.

You have 9.5 usable days . . . minus the most of a day it will eat up getting from Barcelona to Rome. So do JUST Barcelona and Rome and forget about Milan.

I think it is the most common "mistake" for first timers to Europe. The thought that somehow more is more. That's just not true. Spending time and money to go places you aren't particularly interested in, that turn out not even to have the things you thought they offered... well...

Especially if you are able to fly into Barcelona and out of Rome (or the other way around), that's a perfect trip. Just that! If you are really oh so bored in either place you can always add a spontaneous "day trip".

Since you can buy a direct flight from BCN to Rome, for less than $100 or even $70, and it takes 2 hours plus checkin time, I'd forget about the train.

Reading your own goals, I agree you need a third destination between Barcelona and Rome. And the way I took your idea of Nice, is that it sounded scenic and with wineries .

But given that you like to be on the move, I don't see Florence as the right choice either, at least not for more than a day. Florence gets crowded. It was back when I went, and has only gotten more so. But I love Renaissance museums and churches, so for me the crowds would be worth it..

So here's my thought: what about Umbria? Wineries. Hill towns. Hikes. Google Assisi, Perugia and Spoleto. One word of warning, Assisi will get very busy the last week of September. Francis of Assisi is celebrated Oct 4.

Regarding Rome, would exploring a ruined city be of interest? Ostis Antica. 40 min by subway from Rome. You can walk into and among the old buildings, and discover mosaics, a forum, even an 18-seat toilet. Very little is roped off.

Finally Rome is so varied. Here's a good summary of some neighborhoods you might like:

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/it...in-rome-italy/

I must concur with limiting the trip to your two "musts"--Rome and Barcelona. Your time is precious currency; spend it wisely. These two cities would easily fulfill your need to explore food, architecture, and culture, and by staying longer in each place, you just might get a chance to absorb a place's the true culture, not "la tourista" affectations. If you don't believe me, watch cruise ships "vomit" passengers onto La Rambla in Barcelona to give yourself a perspective of how NOT to immerse yourself into a city.

I recommend doing a food tour in Rome (we did one in the Testaccio area that I loved) and a Gaudi tour in Barcelona. Daytrips are easy from both places. In Barcelona, for example, you could go to Girona, only 37 minutes away by train, the setting for the Dali Museum and a place that on its own is rich in culture and history. From Rome, you could do Orvieto or Pompeii or many other places. Believe me, though, Rome has more than enough with which to occupy you.

No matter what you choose, enjoy your planning.
AZ

Nice is a great little city. So the beach has pebbles. Is Cannes generally better because it has a sandy beach? No way. I'll take Nice pebbles over Cannes sand any day. If you just want the best beach then neither of them is the best choice.

I'm confused, the nearly universally adored Anthony Bourdain taught us that we can have a meaningful and rewarding visit to a city in only 24 hours. Didn't he? In his memory, let's all vow to stop jumping all over someone who proposes to visit more than 3 cities in a week (or whatever the threshold of getting jumped on is).