First ever Europe trip, 3 weeks, one country or four?

[chelsea]

Okay so this is my first time to Europe ever (I’m 29, embarrassing I know) and I have 3 full weeks in June. Genuinely stuck.

Option A: go deep in Italy. Rome, Florence, Tuscany, Amalfi, Sicily. Slow pace, eat a lot.

Option B: hit 4 countries shallow. Like London + Paris + Amsterdam + Rome type thing.

My gut says A because rushing sounds miserable, but part of me thinks “I’ve never been, I should see more.” I’ve been browsing small group stuff on TourRadar too because I’m a little intimidated by doing it alone.

For those who did their first Europe trip, which did you do and did you regret it? I keep flip flopping and our flights need to be booked this week.

[Lynath]

What are you interested in? Is it seeing iconic sights, food, art shopping etc. 29 is not embarrassing - it means you have years left for more travel! If you know you want slower travel for three weeks I would pick two countries one main city in the first ,and a main city and more places in the second . I suggest you fly into one country and out of the other to make the most of the time if you can. June is going to be busy so make sure you book accommodation and entry tickets and train tickets in advance. The first day and the last day will be taken up by travel so 19 days. Check weather forecasts- this might help to narrow down destinations. Is there any place you have always wanted to visit for any reason? Start there. If it’s a very small city a few days there will be enough but somewhere like London or Paris requires more time. Then travel to your second country . If it’s Italy which you seem to be leaning to then you can easily spend a couple of weeks divided between cities. It is easy to divide Italy into North and South from Rome for planning purposes. eg North from Rome, Florence and Venice and include somewhere else such as Northern Lakes , Cinque Terre or Bologna which is between Venice and Florence. South from Rome = Naples,Sorrento, Pompeii Amalfi Positano.
It is quick and easy to travel around by train in Italy. Venice and Florence are small cities easily walkable(Venice no cars) and full of atmosphere along with art and history and food and markets. You must book in advance to see the Statue of David in Florence. From Florence you can do day trips out to surrounding villages in Tuscany, or visit Pisa. From there you could also catch a train north to Milan visit the Duomo and Da Vinci’s Last Supper ,for which you must book well in advance, and then go on to the beautiful Lake Como about an hour north and stay at one of the villages on the lake. Unforgettable. However at 29 you might be more interested in Amalfi and Positano where there is a lot of atmosphere, beach life and fun shopping. You could still do Rome, Florence and Venice and Amalfi in the time you have. I would go to Rome, then immediately north to Venice for two full days then Florence and surrounds for 4 days, then back down south all by train to Amalfi (Positano, Capri, Sorrento Pompeii etc) 4-5 days, then back to Rome 5 days to explore it before flying out. Your final amount of days in each place wherever you choose is determined by your interests and type of holiday you like and if you can fly out direct at the end or need to return to a start base.You can get burnt out by seeing too much art or too many cathedrals in one visit, so don’t try to see everything and spend time just enjoying the atmosphere.It is also determined by travelling time between places and checking into hotels etc so allow for that in planning and try to book the most advantageous schedule. Have a great time.

[FatosPur]

I’d personally rather travel slowly and actually enjoy a place instead of rushing around just to check countries off a list. But of course it also depends on time and budget. Everyone travels differently

If it were me, I’d choose the Italy route without hesitation. 3 weeks sounds perfect for that kind of trip.

[TravelNotes]

If this is your ‘first time to Europe ever’ at 29, don’t feel embarrassed but get out there and really make the most of it; as you never know when you’ll be back.

Life passes us by so quickly.

Three weeks in June couldn’t be better.

I wouldn’t go deep, or shallow but take take wide in your stride.

TourRadar has some great Euorpean Experiences.

I’d probably go for something like Classic Europe, as it starts and ends in London and really covers most of your two options in 14 days.

All of your accommodation and transportation is sorted and you’ll have a week left to see more of Britain.

Michel.

[Peejes]

I have a few ideas on this…

We spent (all of) last September visiting Portugal, Spain and France. Our first Tourradar tour (Portugal) was 9 or 10 days. We loved it, felt it was great, and we got to see a lot of places (Lisbon, Cascais, Obidos, Sintra, Fatima, Porto) and it didn’t feel rushed at all, actually more of a semi-private driver-led tour with only 3 people (my wife and I, and a really nice lady that we became friends with and still correspond with to this day).

Our second Tourradar tour (right after the Portugal one) was of southern Spain, for another 9 or 10 days. It was with a bigger group (about 14 people) was very rushed but we visited Madrid, Valencia, Granada, Cordoba, Seville and Barcelona but only spent 2 days in each city (so basically living out of our suitcases), walked a lot while being led by the tour guide that stayed with us for the duration of the tour.

Then we visited France on our own for about 9 more days. We went to Lyon, then Avignon (for 2 days each). This was also a bit rushed but we assumed (incorrectly) that the pace of the tour in Spain would also be ok in France, but we had all most of our time to ourselves to tour. Then we spent 5 whole days in Paris, where things slowed down (meaning a much more leisurely pace) and we could really enjoy the city. I still remember the little boulangerie around the corner from our hotel in the 6th arrondissement (Saint Germain Des Pres) where we’d get breakfast every morning.

The total travel time between countries is close to the same whether by plane or train, but on the train you can relax and not deal with all the security, luggage, moving between terminals, etc… that are part of air travel. And you can actually relax while making last minute plan for the tours in the next city - and the train goes close to downtown so you’re closer to center-of-town hotels if that’s your thing. Something for you to consider.

Now, knowing this, we decided to make our next trip, again all of next September, all in Italy to get around by train as much as possible. We’ll be staying in Venice, Florence, Naples, Sorrento and Rome where we’re staying at a rented apartment with friends coming off a cruise. We’re booking less hotels but more day trips to get longer stays in any one place and get to feel where we are (not just blow through it); day trips from Florence to Bologna/Modena/Parma, and a part of Tuscany on a day-long tour, from Sorrento to the Amalfi coast, from Naples to Pompeii.

So that’s our past experience and adjustment for our next trip. We’re newly retired and still pretty active, but don’t want to spend “vacation time” dealing with logistics of travelling between cities, hence one country and taking trains everywhere (as much as possible).

Hope I didn’t go on forever, and that you can use some of this information to make the decision on how you want your trip to be. Your gut isn’t wrong, but you (should be) able to return to Europe to see other countries in the future. I suppose your other option is to get a Eurail pass and hoof it around Europe without any agenda, stay at youth hostels, and take it all in, like we used to do right after college…

[MamaBearKay]

29 for one shouldn’t be embarrassing cause I didn’t do my first solo Europe adventure until I was 34. I did a trip through Italy as one of my firsts. So I personally lean that way. You have so many options in the one country and no need to rush. Italy has a slow vibe in many of the cities.