soum

3 week tour of europe (only western europe)

17 day tour consisting of
Paris(2)
Interlaken(2)
Annecy(1)
Nice(2)
Montecatini(2) - travel to Florence from there
Rome(2)
Mestre(2) - travel to Venice from there
Munich(2)
tour ends in Vienna

after that self-tour
2 days in vienna
5 days self-drive tour in Austria

and then back home

is this too bad ...

frankly choosing a tour is becoming very hectic...

comments please
cheers

Magda

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:43:12 +0000, in rec.travel.europe, soum
<member2609@british_expats.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... 3 week tour of europe (only western europe)
...
... 17 day tour consisting of
...
... Paris(2)
... Interlaken(2)
... Annecy(1)
... Nice(2)
... Montecatini(2) - travel to Florence from there
... Rome(2)
... Mestre(2) - travel to Venice from there
...
... Munich(2)
... tour ends in Vienna
...
... after that self-tour
... 2 days in vienna
... 5 days self-drive tour in Austria
...
... and then back home
...
... is this too bad

Bring a ton of aspirin.

NoNameAtAll

    >Bring a ton of aspirin.

Couldn't agree more. You'll "see" a lot, but you will "experience" very little
of it. For instance, Paris alone can easily take five days, and even then
you'll barely scratch the surface. It is, however, sufficient to see the major
sights. Two days in Paris would hardly even be worth it in my opinion, though I
suppose it's better than not going at all. I just think you're cramming way,
way too much into such a short time. I once spent three weeks in Europe and
stayed in five cities. Even that seemed rushed to me. The only part of the
itinerary that I thought looked good was the five-day self-tour in Austria at
the end.

soum

frankly i think some of you guys are too pessimistic....
i mean come on there are thousands of people (non-Europeans) going on tours all over Europe and almost 99% of the tours are hectic and don't stay at one place more than 3 days...i am sure they return quite happy of what they saw.....so this pessimistic attitude about tours is becoming a bit too much....i don't have a lot of time to stay in europe for over 2 months and stay in every place for a week so the second best thing i can do is take a tour and get a taste of the things that i think is worth seeing ....so i believe it will not be that bad....

that said everyone has their own opinions and ofcourse have their own experiences and also TIME to go on a long tour....

i guess the above would suit me for a short tour of 3 weeks...

its about doing the best in the time you have....

looking for more comments....but more than one liners please
cheers

Rita

On 06 Jun 2004 14:23:54 GMT, [email protected] (NoNameAtAll) wrote:

    >>Bring a ton of aspirin.
    >Couldn't agree more. You'll "see" a lot, but you will "experience" very little
    >of it. For instance, Paris alone can easily take five days, and even then
    >you'll barely scratch the surface. It is, however, sufficient to see the major
    >sights. Two days in Paris would hardly even be worth it in my opinion, though I
    >suppose it's better than not going at all. I just think you're cramming way,
    >way too much into such a short time. I once spent three weeks in Europe and
    >stayed in five cities. Even that seemed rushed to me. The only part of the
    >itinerary that I thought looked good was the five-day self-tour in Austria at
    >the end.

I could not endure the hours spent on a bus -- not just going from city to
city and country to country, but sightseeing buses within the cities themselves.
Would one ever get to explore a bit on foot? I think not. And I hate the way
these tours add things such as a visit to a perfume or chocolate factory. Who
wants to see these -- well, the tour guide gets a cut of any purchases the
bus passengers surely will make there. The hotels will be situated on the
fringes of the cities, and so even in the evenings there will be no opportunity
to stroll around in interesting neighborhoods. I'd rather rent videos of the
areas involved and view them from the comfort of my home

Magda

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:44:02 +0000, in rec.travel.europe, soum
<member2609@british_expats.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

...
... frankly i think some of you guys are too pessimistic....
... i mean come on
... there are thousands of people (non-Europeans) going on tours all over
... Europe and almost 99% of the tours are hectic and don't stay at one
... place more than 3 days...i am sure they return quite happy of what they
... saw.....so this pessimistic attitude about tours is becoming a bit too
... much....i don't have a lot of time to stay in europe for over 2 months
... and stay in every place for a week so the second best thing i can do is
... take a tour and get a taste of the things that i think is worth seeing
... ...so i believe it will not be that bad....
...
... that said everyone has
... their own opinions and ofcourse have their own experiences and also TIME
... to go on a long tour....
...
... i guess the above would suit me for a short
... tour of 3 weeks...

If it's Tuesday, it must be Belgium. Sure.

Tile

well
I can say about Annecy
you will have half a day to visit the old town
and half a day to visit its castle.

but you will have to run.
and you will have to run in all other capital towns
In paris you will need
half a day to visit the tour eiffel
half a day to visit Notre dame
one day for the louvre
half a day for Sacree coeur..
then all the rest is out.. including Versailles that will take at least
half a day ( runnin)
"soum" <member2609@british_expats.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
    > frankly i think some of you guys are too pessimistic....
    > i mean come on
    > there are thousands of people (non-Europeans) going on tours all over
    > Europe and almost 99% of the tours are hectic and don't stay at one
    > place more than 3 days...i am sure they return quite happy of what they
    > saw.....so this pessimistic attitude about tours is becoming a bit too
    > much....i don't have a lot of time to stay in europe for over 2 months
    > and stay in every place for a week so the second best thing i can do is
    > take a tour and get a taste of the things that i think is worth seeing
    > ...so i believe it will not be that bad....
    > that said everyone has
    > their own opinions and ofcourse have their own experiences and also TIME
    > to go on a long tour....
    > i guess the above would suit me for a short
    > tour of 3 weeks...
    > its about doing the best in the time you have....
    > looking for more comments....but more than one liners please
    > cheers
    > --
    > soum
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Keith Willshaw

"soum" <member2609@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 3 week tour of europe (only western europe)
    > 17 day tour consisting of
    > Paris(2)
    > Interlaken(2)
    > Annecy(1)
    > Nice(2)
    > Montecatini(2) - travel to
    > Florence from there
    > Rome(2)
    > Mestre(2) - travel to Venice from there
    > Munich(2)
    > tour ends in Vienna
    > after that self-tour
    > 2 days in vienna
    > 5
    > days self-drive tour in Austria
    > and then back home
    > is this too bad
    > ..

Its better than the last plan we saw and at leat you get to spend a
full day in Paris and Rome but that is really only a taster.
Last time I was in Rome I spent a week there and only
scratched the surface. I spent a full day in The Forum and
Capitoline area for example and 2 days in the Vatican which is vast.

This year I' m making a 3 week tour and I will
be covering Paris, the Interlaken Area (LauterBrunen)
and Tuscany (San Gimigagno)

Keith

Rita

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:44:02 +0000, soum <member2609@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >frankly i think some of you guys are too pessimistic....
    >i mean come on
    >there are thousands of people (non-Europeans) going on tours all over
    >Europe and almost 99% of the tours are hectic and don't stay at one
    >place more than 3 days...i am sure they return quite happy of what they
    >saw.....so this pessimistic attitude about tours is becoming a bit too
    >much....i don't have a lot of time to stay in europe for over 2 months
    >and stay in every place for a week so the second best thing i can do is
    >take a tour and get a taste of the things that i think is worth seeing
    >...so i believe it will not be that bad....
    >that said everyone has
    >their own opinions and ofcourse have their own experiences and also TIME
    >to go on a long tour....
    >i guess the above would suit me for a short
    >tour of 3 weeks...
    >its about doing the best in the time you have....
    >looking for more comments....but more than one liners please
    >cheers

Let me suggest in three weeks you could spend quality time in
3 or perhaps 4 cities, getting to know each a bit more than will flash
by from the seat of a bus. Such an experience will not mean you
will not want to see more of Europe in the future, but you will bring back
experiences face to face with people there and a start on looking into
each culture. You will have time to stroll about, sit in a cafe and watch
life go by, do things at your own pace. Not have to repack your bag and
get on a bus early each A.M.

That would, in my view and my experience of travel in Europe over many
trips, be doing the best in the time you have. But if you want to just buzz
by in a bus and be led here and there by a tour guide with no time for
individual exploration, that is your choice.

Dominique Foucart

soum avait soumis l'idée :
    > 3 week tour of europe (only western europe)
    > 17 day tour consisting of
    > Paris(2)
    > Interlaken(2)
    > Annecy(1)
    > Nice(2)
    > Montecatini(2) - travel to
    > Florence from there
    > Rome(2)
    > Mestre(2) - travel to Venice from there
    > Munich(2)
    > tour ends in Vienna
    > after that self-tour
    > 2 days in vienna
    > 5
    > days self-drive tour in Austria
    > and then back home
    > is this too bad
    > ..
    > frankly choosing a tour is becoming very hectic...
    > comments
    > please
    > cheers

When I see this type of tour in Europe (being european), I tend to
share the remarks of most of the others (too much, too tiring, etc...).
However, if I compare to the programs I have built for my family for 3
weeks in Western America, or 3 weeks in Malaysia, or 3 weeks in South
Africa, I was also getting the same kind of answers (too much, too
tiring, etc...). Nevertheless, I enjoyed each trip and got a decent
feeling of the country.

What you will see in your program is a lot of mountain, and the
mediteranean see. You will also have a good balance of culture,
outdoor, entertainment.

What you will miss is the Atlantic Ocean / North Sea part, with the
beautifull cities of Brugge, Brussels and Amsterdam. You will als miss
Spain and Greece, which from a cultural approach is probably the best
place to go (except it is very hot in the summer and with the olympics
this year... who knows ?)

In total, I would tend to say that you will travel a lot. If you do it
by car, it may be very lengthy. If you make it by plane, it will be
expensive.

Good luck anyway.

Dominique

--
Dominique Foucart
http://www.loc-alpes.com

B Vaughan

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:43:12 +0000, soum
<member2609@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >3 week tour of europe (only western europe)

If I had just three weeks to see Europe, and had never seen it before
and didn't know when I would see it again, I would do it like this:

Buy an open jaws airline ticket arriving in London and departing from
Rome

Five nights in London with at least one day trip (maybe two) to some
other place, like Bath or Salisbury or York.

Fly to Amsterdam and spend two full days (three nights) in the
vicinity (One day to see Amsterdam amd one for a smaller town such as
Gouda or Haarlem or Delft, for example, which you can see as a day
trip from Amsterdam.)

Train to Paris and four nights in Paris, with a day trip to Chartres
or Versailles.

Train to Venice, taking a scenic route through the Alps and making
sure to pass through in daylight hours. You might break the trip in
some place, perhaps Bern, Switzerland, taking two days to get there.
Spend one full day in Venice and then proceed to Rome

The rest of the time in Rome, taking a day trip or two, perhaps to
Florence if you want to see great art, and then to Assisi or Orvieto.

This would give you a good sample of Europe and enough time in its
great cities to at least get a feel for them. It would also give you a
glimpse of some of the smaller cities, which are often more charming.

In other words, I would suggest doing your trip independently, rather
than taking a tour. It's really not difficult if you travel light.

-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

OughtFour

soum wrote:
    > 3 week tour of europe (only western europe)
    > 17 day tour

soum: how are you accounting for travel days? Paris to Interlaken is a full
day (or a night train).

Interlaken to Annecy must be almost as convoluted and lengthy. Etc.

Some of these travel days are only a few hours, but many are much longer.
All require you to pack your stuff when you leave, then check in and unpack
at the end of the day.

Do the math.

You would change venues *nine times* in 17 days. That means you really only
have 8 unbroken days on your trip (though you would have some additional
mornings or afternoons available in a few places).

So really, most of the cities you have marked as 2 days actually allow only
one day of sightseeing.

    >consisting of
    > Paris(2)
    > Interlaken(2)
    > Annecy(1)
    > Nice(2)
    > Montecatini(2) - travel to
    > Florence from there
    > Rome(2)
    > Mestre(2) - travel to Venice from there
    > Munich(2)

[snip]

    > frankly choosing a tour is becoming very hectic...

I admire your ambition, but can't help but wonder (as others have) whether a
less muscular itinerary would not ultimately be more satisfying.

Have a great trip!

Rita

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:42:00 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:43:12 +0000, soum
    ><member2609@british_expats.com> wrote:
    >>3 week tour of europe (only western europe)
    >If I had just three weeks to see Europe, and had never seen it before
    >and didn't know when I would see it again, I would do it like this:
    >Buy an open jaws airline ticket arriving in London and departing from
    >Rome
    >Five nights in London with at least one day trip (maybe two) to some
    >other place, like Bath or Salisbury or York.
    >Fly to Amsterdam and spend two full days (three nights) in the
    >vicinity (One day to see Amsterdam amd one for a smaller town such as
    >Gouda or Haarlem or Delft, for example, which you can see as a day
    >trip from Amsterdam.)
    >Train to Paris and four nights in Paris, with a day trip to Chartres
    >or Versailles.
    >Train to Venice, taking a scenic route through the Alps and making
    >sure to pass through in daylight hours. You might break the trip in
    >some place, perhaps Bern, Switzerland, taking two days to get there.
    >Spend one full day in Venice and then proceed to Rome
    >The rest of the time in Rome, taking a day trip or two, perhaps to
    >Florence if you want to see great art, and then to Assisi or Orvieto.
    >This would give you a good sample of Europe and enough time in its
    >great cities to at least get a feel for them. It would also give you a
    >glimpse of some of the smaller cities, which are often more charming.
    >In other words, I would suggest doing your trip independently, rather
    >than taking a tour. It's really not difficult if you travel light.
I have done something very similar -- I think your choices of London,
Amsterdam and Paris are right on. Also a train trip through Switzerland.
As for Italy, I'd pick Venice over Rome, but then I have liked every place
I've been in Italy more than Rome. Go figure

Traveling light is indeed an asset to a carefree trip. Just got back from
a week in London and week in Paris. I traveled with a small bag on
wheels -- my daughter had a large bag on wheels. I could manage OK
on the public transport but going home we ended up taking taxis in
Paris and London because she just could not hack it with the large bag.
I had sufficient clothing for a week, and did one wash and dry at our
London hotel.

Luca Logi

soum <member2609@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > frankly i think some of you guys are too pessimistic....
    > i mean come on
    > there are thousands of people (non-Europeans) going on tours all over
    > Europe and almost 99% of the tours are hectic and don't stay at one
    > place more than 3 days...i am sure they return quite happy of what they
    > saw.....

I sometimes do, for my work, concert tours even faster then your
proposed tour. Say, 5 different cities of Spain in 5 days (6 including
the return leg), or 8 cities across Europe in 10 days. I won't say the
thing is not interesting, but the daily routine quickly becomes
stressful. Every day the clock rings, you have to have a shower, have a
hasty breakfast, pack everything, travel all the morning or even the
early afternoon, you get in the new city, check at your hotel room, find
something to eat somewhere, and then work to late night. Mind you, in
such case I do not even have the stress of finding the hotel on taking
care of the transportation on my own, and not even the stress of
actually visiting the city. But after a while I get tired of the
repeated packing and unpacking and all the time spent waiting in an
airport or in a station.

The thing is so stressful that while I can do it as a work, I would
never consider it for my own holidays. The point is: you will never
manage to see all Europe, and not even to see Europe's highlights. This
would be impossible even to Europeans. So choose some places and spend
an adequate amount of time there, so that you can actuall see something.
Be sure to have some time for sleeping as nothing will wear you out more
than not sleeping enough. And be sure not to spend a sizable part of
your precious holiday time in transit - unless you actually like
travelling (in place of sightseeing) or you are a railway fan.



--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)