Tweeter

My husband and I have never been to Europe before and would love opinions on our itinerary! (We have booked the trip for spring, so plenty of time to plan.)

Tues - Fly from US
Wed - Arrive London, Fly to Rome
Thur - Rome
Fri- Rome
Sat - Rome
Sun - Train to Florence
Mon - Florence
Tues - Florence
Wed - Florence
Thur - Florence
Fri - Train to Venice
Sat - Venice
Sun - Venice
Mon - Fly to London (from Venice)
Tues - London
Wed - London
Thur - London
Fri - Fly back home

From Florence, we are looking at some daytrips but not committed (Sienna, Pisa, Chianti?) Do the number of nights/days in each city seem good? Should we take one or two nights to stay in a smaller city as a change of pace and scenery? We have committed to London for 4 nights (flexible on which nights though). We have not booked flights between London and Italy yet. Other interests would be Bellagio or the Amalfi Coast, but I don't know that either will make sense, since we want to see the main cities too. Any suggestions appreciated!

bobthenavigator

Looks fine and doable. However, you have too much time in Florence. I would stay 2 nites there and then get a car for 3 days to explore Tuscany, staying near Siena to see the hill towns. Drop the car at the airpot in Florence and still train to venice. That will work.

Statia

I think it looks good, too. I would normally never think to disagree with Bob, but we recently spent four nights in Florence and had just enough time to see the "must sees" on our list. However, we are big art and history fans, so if you're not, then I would agree to limit your days there. If you limit your days, then do as Bob said, see another small town, or just do some day trips into the Tuscan countryside.

Good luck with your plans!

BLN

You're smart to be seeking advice - hope you can digest it all!!

My advice: Don't try to squeeze in too much or anything south of Rome on this trip. Rome is worth a week itself and remember you will be tired when you arrive so those first few days in Rome you probably won't feel 100%.

Have you thought about spending 2 nights in Florence, then 2 nights in another, smaller Tuscan town, then going to Venice straight from there? I agree that 4 days is too much in Florence (IMHO). (Sorry to those who disagree!)

Good luck!

Tweeter

Thanks, maybe we could cut a little from Florence to add on a Tuscan City. Any recommendations? We are interested in the car idea, but nervous about driving too. Any suggestions for a car excursion for a couple of days?

ira

Hi tweeter,

As this is your very first trip to Europe, unless you are very confident about your navigation skills, I would suggest holding off driving for the next time you go.

I don't think you are spending too much time in Florence, especially since the Uffizi and Accademia are closed on Monday. You could use this day for a trip to Lucca/Pisa or Siena.

Looks like a lovely trip.

daria

Hi Tweeter,

What a lovely trip to be planning. The amount of time you spend in each of these cities depends a lot on personal preferences in terms of what you like to do on vacation, how often you care to move around, how much time you like to spend in museums and churches, how busy you like to be, etc.

Most of the people on this site will probably tell you that your itinerary is fine or they will tell you to spend even less time in the cities you've chosen. Many people (myself included) tend to prefer a bit more contemplative type of traveling. This proves especially true in the destinations you?ve chosen if you like art and history.

So, with that said, I would say that you need at the very least 5 days in Rome, 5 in Florence, 3 or 4 in Venice and 5 in London to see the major museums, churches and other sites--and to really have the time to enjoy them. Again, I say at the very least because, I agree with BLN that Rome is worth a week, and I would say the same about Florence, Venice and London.

At the same time, I would agree with some of the previous posters that you might be better off eliminating one of these big cities and spending some more time in a smaller town or village. This tends to work very well and to balance out the rush of big cities. It can make the overall vacation more relaxing.

I hope all of these differing opinions don't confuse you too much. I'm sure you will have a wonderful time.

Cheers!

Daria

elaine

However you do your trip, it will be wonderful. If it were me, I agree with bobthe. that in this particular itinerary you have given too much precious time to Florence. Yes you could spend two weeks there and not see all the fabulous art, but there are compromises to be made. Take two of the Florence days and travel around Tuscany, or at least daytrip into Tuscany. My beloved Venice is getting short shrift, but I wouldn't want you to see less of London or Rome either.

I have files on your cities; if you'd like to see any or all, email me at
[email protected]

coffeeaddict

This will be a great trip, no matter how you do it. Because you and your husband haven't been to Europe before, though, I'd recommend that you do your four days in London FIRST, before you get to Italy. I love London--it was the first European city I went to--but Italy is such a mesmerizing place that to go to London after that will be somewhat anticlimatic, in my humble opinion.

There is a lot to see and do in London, but even more so in Rome. Also, London is a very approachable, user-friendly city to visit and travel in. As first time European travelers, it might make sense to start out with London because you don't have any language barriers there, the Underground is a cinch to get around in, and you'll be tired after that transAtlantic flight. Spend that first day in London walking around Kensington or St. James or Battersea park. It'll be beautiful in the spring.

Save Rome and Italy for when you're over your jetlag and have gotten over some of the inevitable travel jitters. Rome is truly an awesome, beautiful city that you'll want to be fresh for the experience. I think it wouldn't hurt to steal a day or two from Florence to spend in Rome.

Although I've never been to Venice, that would be a good last stop for your trip. By then, you can take your time to enjoy the romance of the city. London is a bit too frenetic and fast-paced to experience last just before heading back home.

Save southern Italy (and Paris!) for your next trip or trips--that'll be a lot to look forward to!

Tweeter

Coffeeaddict: You bring up an interesting point!

While I have never been to London or Italy, I have a feeling I will miss Italy terribly when we leave. The entire trip was supposed to be Italy only, but frequent flyer miles landed us in London. Since we will be in London, it seems silly to not spend time there. I mean it is London!! Does anyone else have thoughts on London being first vs. last on our trip? Also, am I giving enough time to Venice as Elaine mentioned, particularly since one of our days in Venice is a Sunday? ALL advice greatly appreciated!!!!

Statia

If it were me, I would personally do London on the beginning of the trip and end the trip in Venice. Venice is a very relaxing city to wind down in. Maybe you could spend your very last night back in London, as well, before heading home.

I would prefer at least three days in Venice, myself, but if two is all you have, it's definitely doable, even with one of them being a Sunday.

bluefan

Hi Tweeter,

Coffeeaddict and Statia have provided some great advice, but I'll offer up a different perspective. My wife and I went to Europe for the first time this past May, exploring Rome and the Amalfi Coast first before spending our last days in London. Thinking back, I wouldn't switch the order if presented a 2nd opportunity.

Like you, my whole trip was geared towards Italy...the place I was most excited to see. If I were to have been in London first, I probably would've kept thinking only 3 more days til Rome, only 2 more days til Italy, etc. And instead of using all my time in London to best enjoy it, I probably would've continued to tweak my plans for Italy or trying to better prepare for it. I'm not saying that you'll be thinking the same things, but I think it would be easy to get into that mode because well Italy is ITALY (it's fabulous). I just think you run into a greater risk of treating London as an afterthought (if visited first) rather than a truly special place all by itself which it rightfully deserves to be (when visited last).

I truly believe my memories of London are much more vivid after visiting it last then if I were to have visited it first.

What I'm trying to convey here is if your trip is geared towards Italy, then take care of that tremendous desire first so that you can then move on to make the most of your remaining vacation time in Europe. Treat London as a dessert rather than an appetizer, and I think you'll better appreciate it as well!

Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about being exhausted early in your visit to Rome due to jet lag, etc. Being that it'll be your first time, your excitement (and those Italian expressos) will carry you through those first few days!

daria

Having visited London, Venice and Florenced on my first trip to Europe, I would agree that going to London first is a good idea. I agree with coffeaddict and Statia that London will be a let down after Italy, especially *immediately* after Italy. But, if you see it before you even set foot in Italy I think you will enjoy it more.

I also agree that Venice is a good city to end with as it is the slowest of the 4 you mentioned. You can probably guess that I will say three days in Venice is better than two, but Venice happens to be one of my favorite places on earth, so I am totally subjective.



Daria

HowardR

I'm another of the "Venice at the end" people. After two weeks of travel, you'll really welcome the relaxed atmosphere of that wonderful city! We did on our first trip.