Thanks zeppole...you nailed it on the head.

Can you (or possibly someone else) recommend a good backpacker board we can check out?

The Lonely Planet Thorn Tree forums.

www.lonelyplanet.com

Thanks...Just posted a message over there!

<i> I'm now puzzled as to why people think a vacation that embraces two different European cities has to be shot down at all costs.</i>

Me too. Three cities in 10 days is not as ridiculous as many would make it seem. Perhaps not to everyone's tastes, but it is perfectly reasonable.

Three cities in 10 days isn't so crazy, but the poster doesn't have 10 days, and maybe has as few as 7 once you subtract traveling there and back and a day to recover from jet lag. Even if you use that &quot;jet lag recovery&quot; day to travel to the first city....2 days, travel, 2 days, travel, 2 days, home. That's still a little ambitious!

I think three cities in 10 days is crazy at all. That sounds fine to me, 3 nights in two cities, 4 nights in a third.

But I was responding to a post that suggested 4 cities in 7 nights (and cities spread out over multiple countries, not close by like Tuscan towns). That's crazy talk, unless your intent is to just pass through each city for a quick photo stop.

Oops - I meant to type &quot;I DON'T think three cities in 10 days is crazy at all.&quot;

But 7 nights does not equal 10 days, unless my math is off. I think some cities are &quot;sharing&quot; the days, so they aren't actual &quot;days&quot; but an hour or two.

3 cities in 10 days isn't necessarily crazy -- but

1) They don't have 10 days

2) and they were not talking bout 3 cities They started out w/ &quot;Greece, Italy and Paris&quot; That is 2 countries and one city. If the OP was &quot;Athens, Rome and Paris in 10 days&quot; it would still be hectic - but they would have something to work w/

3) Now it is down to &quot;Paris and Italy&quot; - that is still too much in 7+ days. Paris and Rome, or Paris and Venice - sure. But Paris and &quot;Italy&quot; - nope.

BTW - Backpackers travel cheap, but generally they don't travel fast. So Lonely Planet will help them save money - but it really can't help them travel from Paris to Rome any faster . . . . . .

The big problem with your plans is the packing, checking out and schlepping to the next spot. So, why not do away with that and take a river or barge cruise. I've had those on my mind since I read a very recent thread on them. That way, the getting from point A to B is part of the adventure. Check my screen name, I posted a few links that could help.

Or, you could rent a boat, at locaboat is one that I have heard of. It would be tough to fit in both Paris and Rome, but you would have a magnificent honeymoon.

&gt;&gt;Backpackers travel cheap, but generally they don't travel fast.&lt;&lt;

Some do.

To me, the biggest problem for John-and-Katie getting what they want from their trip in such a short time frame is that globalization has homogenized and rationalized culture. It used to be that if you flew into a foreign capital, the airport itself was the first experience of being in a different culture. Now, not only are all the airports the same, but trendy restaurants and bars in international capitals are all decorated to look like airport lounges -- seriously!

Their scheme might work if they pick 3 sufficiently different cities. I might go snoop on the Thron Tree board to see how they're doing. Maybe they're getting bawled out over there too.

You can do it. But the biggest problem for John-and-Katie will be to find some time for honeymooning.
G.

Just for the record, and in case J-K comes back, I just looked up overnight trains out of curiosity, and there is one that leaves Rome around 9:30pm and gets into Munich around 8am the next morning.

http://studenttravel.about.com/b/200...-save-time.htm

So a 10 day trip that included Rome, Munich and Paris could be very interesting.

A few years ago, I took a slightly less than two week trip that began by flying during the day to London, then flying to Berlin, flying to Paris and taking the train to Brussels, flying back to US. In London, I visited 3 art museums and Kew Gardens, 5 museums in Berlin, went to the Louvre, Les Invalides and took the canal boat in Paris, went to 2 museums in Brussels and took a day trip to Gent. I ate sit down meals three times a day, and found time to write.

It can be done!

Gaspard, overnight trains have a well-deserved reputation for sexiness. (See North by Northwest, Unbearable Lightness of Being).

Before Sunrise is a great travel romance.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that people who drop into town ready to have fun and explore have a more romantic time than people with a tick list of sightseeing 3 days Rome, 3 day Florence, 3 days Venice.

I'm reading this as seven nights. Much too short for what they really want. Have any of you taken overnight trains? Somehow I don't see &quot;honeymoon&quot; and &quot;overnight train&quot; in the same sentence.

There are things they can do in this short period of time. They can fly into Rome for five nights, taking a day or two for day trips outside the city -- maybe Orvieto? -- and two nights in Paris. They will get only a glimpse of Paris, but at least they will have seen Paris. More than once I have used Paris as a stopover on my way home from somewhere else.

Or, they could fly into Venice and do a stopover in Paris.

Or, they could visit two areas in Italy (north or south, not both) and call it a day -- or Paris and Loire Valley for a week -- my personal favorite for a honeymoon.

John_and_Katie -- please let us know what you decide to do.

The point is:

There's lots of things they could do!

They could fly to Madrid and take a one hour flight to the Basque country, and then take a train from there to Paris, and then an overnight train to Venice.

They want to go dancing. Clubbing. That's different from what most Fodorites do with their travel time.

Again, I can't see why it's superior to spend time on trains daytripping back and forth, and then sleeping in the same country every night when you could sleep on the train -- if that's what you want to do.

&gt;&gt;Somehow I don't see &quot;honeymoon&quot; and &quot;overnight train&quot; in the same sentence.&lt;&lt;

Well, I do -- and here's a whole article about how trains are an aphrodisiac:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../28/do2804.xml

&quot;With your nose right up against the blue plastic of a Ryanair seat with inflight bingo in the background and a smell of bad coffee mingled with Jet A up the nose, it is impossible to think of love. Settled into a fast, or even better, a slow train to Milan or Barcelona or Lisbon, ideally overnight, it is virtually unavoidable.&quot;

<i>They want to go dancing. Clubbing. That's different from what most Fodorites do with their travel time.</i>

?? I don't recall seeing this in any of their posts. Culture and scenery is all I remember.

I remember my overnight train from Venice to Genoa. Not much sleep -- too much noise, rocking and rolling. And it had everything to do with the train and nothing to do with a honeymoon! Fortunately, we were able to check into our room at 8:00am so we could get some sleep.

dmlove,

they've said they wanted nightlife.

oh, that's sad, luvtotravel. I had a delicious 4-day trip in Amtrak in a sleeper.