ParkerSunshine

I am going to Europe with my husband for the first time this July (I know, July, but it is when we can get off from work). We will be flying into London, out of Rome. We have already booked and planned 2 nights in London, 2 nights in Paris with the rest of our time in Italy (which leaves 9 days).

I am not sure what our itinerary in Italy should be - the only "must" for us is to spend some time alond the coast on a beach. Originally I was thinking: Fly from Paris to Pisa and head to Florence, spend 3 days in Florence, with one of those days being a tour of Tuscany. Then head to Sorennto for 4 days and use Sorennto as our base to visit Positano, Ravello, and Capri etc. My fear with using Sorrento as the base is that we will always be "touring" rather then having a day or two to just lay by the beach and take it easy.

Obviously I am all over the place so any logical direction would be appreciated.

The things we can't change is that we are coming from Paris and leaving from Rome. Also we are a young married couple who LOVE the beach, nightlife, and food!

suec1

Well....you are covering alot of ground - one idea to begin with, scrap Sorrento and the Amalfi area, stay further north in the Italian Riviera or Cinque Terre. There is a beach in Monterrosa, I think, but many of the Italian beaches are rocky. I let some other posters chime in at this point but in the meantime you may want to read some posts on the Cinque Terre or Menton.

Palenque

As for Paris to Florence you can also take the Artesia overnight train - cop a private double and it could be oh so romantic

Oh so romantic that i have friends whose son, they claim, was conceived on an overnight train between France and Italy.

Scour www.voyages-sncf.com for online discount fares that can be cheaper than the cost of a night in a hotel and no hassle getting out to the airports and back

and no worries about that darned volcano stopping flights, stranding you in Paree.

sap

I cannot imagine trying to see London and Paris for the first time in only two days each. You will barely be able to glance at each city before moving on. Plus, your first day in London will be overshadowed by jet lag. What did you plan to see/do in that time frame? (I spent a week in London and still missed things I wanted to see; and am planning a week in Paris feeling all the while that it's not enough. I would think three or four days each, minimum, for the first time.)

It's too bad you've booked so you cannot narrow this plan down. Is there no way to change things? You have very little time to cover the places you've listed, so it may end up feeling more like a blur than a true experience.

If your "must" is coastal, then suec1 is right that the Amalfi area could be your best bet.

When you calculated your available days, did you account for the travel times between London, Paris & Italy, which will eat up quite a bit of time?

If London and Paris were not in the mix, your plan for Italy alone in two weeks or less (Tuscany, Amalfi Coast & Rome) would still seem like a stretch, but doable at a fast pace. I'll leave that critique to the local experts. It doesn't sound like you've booked your accommodations there yet for the super-busy month of July, though. Best of luck!

nytraveler

You need to decide what you mean by beach. Italy has a lot of seaside resosrts but many of them don;t have beaches within the meaning f the act (Sorry, I'm from Long Island originally nd used to very broad, fine white sand beaches with north atlantic surf) - many of the beaches in italy are pebbles, stones, sort of icky muddy sand - and there re no waves.

So - if you want a beautiful beach i would search for one - and buld the trip around that>

Also agree that 2 nights ech in London and Paris makes no sense. At least spend 4 nights in Londona nd then fly to Italy - and save Paris for when you can do it justice.

ParkerSunshine

Its just each travelers approach. I go on many message boards and there are always these debates - spend 2 weeks in one country or between many. I have no idea when I will be back to Europe again and so I decided to a "taste" of many places with London and Paris being the appetizer and Italy being the main meal.

krgystn

your approach is fine; you will see a lot more variety with 3 different countries

annhig

your approach is fine; you will see a lot more variety with 3 different countries>>

but what you will mostly see is the inside of lots of airports and trains.

honestly, less IS more.

if you want to enjoy yourselves, I would suggest no more than 3 base destinations - London, Venice, Rome. if you want the beach, instead of Venice fly to Nice and from there get the train to Rome [which could be a bit of an adveture] but in Venice you have the Lido which could give you Italy and the beach.

krgystn

annhig, I don't disagree with what you say, but you have to look at it from another's point of view. Personnally, I don't like to rush thru a country or city, but for a first timer, it may be more compelling to see 3 completely different cultures than just one country.

Of course, 3 nights in London and Paris would make a lot more sense, if one wants to see anything at all. It is not worth the long flights, transports and hotel changes for one full day in London/Paris.

mamcalice

To continue your analogy, I'm afraid you will eat so fast, you won't even remember the meal. I can't imagine 2 days in London, 2 in Paris and 9 in Italy. It can be done but I'm not sure it can be enjoyed and remembered when the 2 weeks are over. Have you thought about just going to Italy since it is the "main meal"?

annhig

annhig, I don't disagree with what you say, but you have to look at it from another's point of view. >>

I do try to do that, krgstyn, but I am not going to tell someone that their "if it's tuesday it must be Belgium" itinerary is a peach when it isn't.

people who have never been to europe before seem to think that by rushing around all over the continent, they will see more. we know that in fact, they will see less.

of course it's possible to have a holiday this way, but will they want to come back?

sap

ParkerSunshine, each of your appetizers is more like half a bite of an amuse-bouche.

I'm just concerned you won't enjoy yourself as much as you could and might regret it. Is it possible to skip Paris for now as nytraveler suggested and add those two days to London before heading to Italy? This would give you one day to recover from the jet lag and three days to more fully enjoy London.

If you really want to go to Paris, I'm sure you'll find a way. You did say you were young, so you have lots of time for future trips!

zeppole

Given your overall itinerary, I suggest you look into the possibility of flying to Sardegna from Paris. Get in your beach time, and then go to Rome. From Rome you can day trip to Firenze if you are interested.

That itinerary might give you a little wiggle room to add time to Paris or London.

hamlet

Would you consider reducing to 2 base locations in Italy to maximize your vacation time there and minimize travel time backtracking?

How about flying EasyJet from Paris to Naples? (I also did this after leaving Acte V) Then you can choose your seaside location for 4 or 5 days and then train/bus to Rome for the remainder.

isabel

If you have 13 nights and want all three countries I would do this: 3 nights London, chunnel to Paris for 3 nights.

That leaves 7 nights in Italy. Pick one of the following -

Overnight train to Camogli and spend next two nights in Camogli which is just north of the CT and has a decent beach and is a nice town. From there you can do a day trip to the five CT towns and hike between them. The other day you can either just hang at the beach or take another day trip to other towns in the area. Then two days in either Florence or a smaller Tuscan town (but not both) finishing with two in Rome.

Or fly from Paris to Naples and spend five nights on the Amalfi Coast, ending with two in Rome.

krgystn

I agree with Isabel: 3 nights London, 3 nights Paris, the rest in Amalfi and Rome. You will get to see a lot of variety.