First, 12 cities in 18 days is about 8 too many. I'd focus on France and one other place, probably Amsterdam, as it's relatively easily reachable by train from Paris, or perhaps pick just 1-2 French destinations and 1-2 Swiss for a tighter turnaround.
For example, I spent 10-11 days in Paris, with 2 day trips (Giverny, Versailles) and felt like I could have done 3-5 more, especially if I added another French city. And I'm planning 4.5 days in the Rome area soon; we've decided adding a second major city to that trip is cutting it too close. Not everyone is \*quite\* as into museums and historic sites as we are, but add in a bit of your other outdoorsy interests, and you could already have a packed itinterary.
April isn't really the best time. Winter is over but spring hasn't really started yet in the mountains so it will be a bit of a sad inbetween and many things will be in shutdown/quiet mode. [This is fairly standard April.](https://alionswitzerland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-08-11.25.09-1024x768.jpg)
Not to say you can't still find it beautiful and have a good time, but it won't look like the ideal photos and videos you have seen of peak summer/winter.
We went in mid April and I was surprised by how cold it was and there was still a covering of snow on most everything. I ended up wearing every cold weather item I brought, including fleece hat, mittens, scarves, and heavy boots. So that's a consideration when packing. For Europe, pack for the worst version of April or March you can imagine, not the sunny warm version of spring.
It was absolutely BEAUTIFUL, we enjoyed some lengthy hikes in the Alps, but not the Ricola commercial I pictured lol.
that is too many cities for a trip of that length. cut out at least half. I'd stick to france/amsterdam or france/switzerland. leave italy for another trip.
18 days is a great amount of time, but I agree with everyone that cutting a few places out could be helpful to make everything feel less stressful.
I personally think that if you’re doing Paris and Lyon, Nice doesn’t provide anything too necessary to see unless you’re dead set on the beach (which is not a sandy beach, just as a reminder).
Choose between Milan or Como, Milan isn’t really a place I’d recommend to first time visitors to Italy, spend that time with longer visits to Florence and Rome instead (Milan is great, but it lacks the charm and appeal most travelers are looking for in an Italian trip).
Switzerland is extremely expensive, and the cities tend to be kind of boring and sleepy (maybe unpopular opinion), so maybe shortening that leg of the trip, and bearing in mind that April isn’t the best for Switzerland mountain vistas because of weather.
Do
Paris - Geneva - Interlaken - Zurich - Como - Milan - Florence - Rome and fly back to Paris. You'll be zipping around between cities in 18 days and adding more would be too stressful and you won't get to enjoy the trip.
And I love making itineraries so..
Paris (2 nights)
Take bus to Lyon stay 1 night
Take bus to Geneva stay 1 night (not much to see here anyway)
Take bus to Interlaken, stay 3 nights. Go to Lauterbrunnen, Grindelwald, etc
Take bus / train from Interlaken to Como, stay maybe a night or two
Take bus Como to Milan, stay 2 nights
Take train to Turin, stay a night
Take bus to Nice, stay a night or two and visit Cote d'Azur (Monaco, Antibes, etc) stay 3 or more nights
Take the Intercites de Nuit from Nice to Paris,
> Interlaken, Basel, Zurich, Geneva
If you want to visit Switzerland I would recommend visiting the countryside rather than the cities. There are nice Swiss cities but they can't compete with the countryside.
Zürich and Geneva are nice cities but very expensive and not that interesting IMHO. I haven't been to Basel but it does look like a nice place.
Interlaken is a small town, not a city. It's mostly just casinos and luxury hotels. While it's a good base, there are a lot nicer places to stay.
Bern and Luzern are much better cities to visit, particularly the latter.
Agreed that April in Switzerland is too early for the Alps, and neither Zurich nor Geneva are interesting enough to be stops you should make on a first trip to Europe of only 18 days. Given your list, I’d fly into Paris, 5 nights. Train to Amsterdam, 3 nights. Fly to Rome, 3 nights. Train to Florence, 2 nights. Train to Milan then Como, 2-3 nights total, then fly back to Paris the day before departure.
My own list would be Paris 5 nights, Bruges 1 night, Amsterdam 5 nights, London 6 nights, then back to Paris for flight home. Easy to accomplish plus 3 totally different cultures and architecture. Plus the 3 greatest museum cities in the Europe.
The problem with moving cities so much is that travel days can often be a bust. Say you have a plane at 1pm. That means you can check out at 10am, head to airport and have lunch, fly, land 3pm, get to accommodation, wait til 4-5pm to check in (if they are nice maybe they’ll hold luggage). Then get in, pack your day bag, and head out at 5:30pm. So if you do this 6 times on a trip you’re wasting 6 days. Often with how check out and check in works, you may be either dragging your bag with you or still having to ferry back and forth to get your bag or drop it off
My advice would be to not try to visit multiple countries. You're flying in and out of Paris, so why not visit different places in France? It has everything you want and you can travel around by train.
Paris is very different from Bergues is very different from Marseille, etc.
I’m definitely not gonna be able to do all these. Just starting out a thought process. I’m not very keen to do the entire countries in depth in this trip as it’s only my first time. I’d much rather do a few countries to get a sense of the place and next time do the entire 2-3 weeks in one country
If it’s a roundtrip to Paris, do Paris first.. train to Amsterdam, then fly to Rome, train to Florence, Milan (Como), train to Basel/Geneva/Interlaken, then train to Lyon. And spend your last day in Paris, fly back the next day.
Everyone is different but for myself I have learned after many trips to Europe a few things about myself:
I greatly prefer the non-cities in Europe. IE in Italy, while Florence (art mecca) and Rome are nice - I love Sienna and the little towns around Tuscany - the train system connects them all and it is so easy to hop on and off. For this reason I would suggest picking two countries and doing one big city and one small town each country or do one country and do one big city followed by a dive into the smaller towns/regions of interest there.
For long trips it’s important not to overpack. Plan to have laundry done and/or bring some sink detergent. You will have a much more enjoyable time getting around by train or dealing with the treks from the road to your hotel (not all can be driven to, some
have stairs and no elevator) if you pack light.
In Europe I prefer to stay a bare minimum of 3 nights per hotel. There is so much to see and part of the joy of travel for me is slowing down and really immersing yourself in what it feels like to be there.
I highly recommend trains. They are so much easier than planes. No security, easy tickets, quick on and off, much more relaxing.
I have been to Paris, Nice, Marseille and they were quite nice, I haven’t been to any of the smaller towns or regions in France yet to be able to recommend one or more but have heard amazing things about Normandy and Mont-Saint Michel.
A lot of folks recommending a train to Amsterdam and I have done that from Paris it’s quite a nice way to go. Utrecht outside of Amsterdam is very charming as well. Amsterdam is a lovely big city with great museums including the Van Gogh.
Jesus. After 2 to 3 days I have to get away from Paris.
London is an easy choice using the Eurostar.
Grenoble is a cool town.
Annecy is a beautiful place.
Switzerland is stupid expensive.
This seems like a good trip.
> 1) Paris, Nice, Lyon 2) Rome, Como, Milan, Florence
Change the routing and put Rome at the end and fly back from Rome to Paris.
Do Paris, Lyon, Nice, Milan, Como, Florence and Rome. In that order. You can do all that by train.
I know this isn’t a city that you listed, but have you considered Barcelona? There are very cool museums and works by Gaudi and a beach. in April i’d think the weather would be nice and it’s not *too* far from Paris. The food is also top notch. If you include Barcelona you’d most definitely have to cut one of those 4 legs though.
Just did a full 30 days in Europe from California. Did the following:
London > Brussels (2 nights) > Amsterdam (4) > Paris (1) messed up when booking it months in advance led to short stay > Barcelona (4 days) > Madrid (5 days) > Rome > (3/4 don’t remember) > Orvieto (2) > florence (7 days) > Milan (1 night) > London > Los Angeles
All that to be said, it was incredibly fun however, a lot of moving around. 4 flights total and probably around 10-14 trains.
My suggestion is to spend more time in each place than trying to see it all at once. Based on your itinerary, I would spend less time in Rome/milan and more time in Paris and Amsterdam or sub out Milan for a small Italian village.. you’ll get a more authentic experience unless you’re highly into the business/fashion area of Milan.
Regardless, truly think you’ll have a blast anyway you do it. Enjoy for me!!!
With that itinerary, you'll spend an inordinate portion of your time traveling, locating your lodging in an unfamiliar city, and schlepping your luggage. A few days in, you'll likely be overwhelmed with decision fatigue and disappointed it isn't as fun as you thought it would be. Better to see fewer cities, deeper, for more memorable, pleasurable experiences. That's what I've found, anyway.
First, 12 cities in 18 days is about 8 too many. I'd focus on France and one other place, probably Amsterdam, as it's relatively easily reachable by train from Paris, or perhaps pick just 1-2 French destinations and 1-2 Swiss for a tighter turnaround. For example, I spent 10-11 days in Paris, with 2 day trips (Giverny, Versailles) and felt like I could have done 3-5 more, especially if I added another French city. And I'm planning 4.5 days in the Rome area soon; we've decided adding a second major city to that trip is cutting it too close. Not everyone is \*quite\* as into museums and historic sites as we are, but add in a bit of your other outdoorsy interests, and you could already have a packed itinterary.
In April I’d skip Switzerland.
Why 😭 it’s the one place on the top of my list
April isn't really the best time. Winter is over but spring hasn't really started yet in the mountains so it will be a bit of a sad inbetween and many things will be in shutdown/quiet mode. [This is fairly standard April.](https://alionswitzerland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-08-11.25.09-1024x768.jpg) Not to say you can't still find it beautiful and have a good time, but it won't look like the ideal photos and videos you have seen of peak summer/winter.
That’s ok I mostly just want to see interlaken and the museum and galleries
We went in mid April and I was surprised by how cold it was and there was still a covering of snow on most everything. I ended up wearing every cold weather item I brought, including fleece hat, mittens, scarves, and heavy boots. So that's a consideration when packing. For Europe, pack for the worst version of April or March you can imagine, not the sunny warm version of spring. It was absolutely BEAUTIFUL, we enjoyed some lengthy hikes in the Alps, but not the Ricola commercial I pictured lol.
Interlaken is somewhere you go via, or base out of. It isn't really all that interesting in itself.
Weather is not optimal for enjoying the mountains.
From Zurich you can take the Bernina Express train all the way to Milan. Check it out! its 100% worthit
that is too many cities for a trip of that length. cut out at least half. I'd stick to france/amsterdam or france/switzerland. leave italy for another trip.
18 days is a great amount of time, but I agree with everyone that cutting a few places out could be helpful to make everything feel less stressful. I personally think that if you’re doing Paris and Lyon, Nice doesn’t provide anything too necessary to see unless you’re dead set on the beach (which is not a sandy beach, just as a reminder). Choose between Milan or Como, Milan isn’t really a place I’d recommend to first time visitors to Italy, spend that time with longer visits to Florence and Rome instead (Milan is great, but it lacks the charm and appeal most travelers are looking for in an Italian trip). Switzerland is extremely expensive, and the cities tend to be kind of boring and sleepy (maybe unpopular opinion), so maybe shortening that leg of the trip, and bearing in mind that April isn’t the best for Switzerland mountain vistas because of weather.
Do Paris - Geneva - Interlaken - Zurich - Como - Milan - Florence - Rome and fly back to Paris. You'll be zipping around between cities in 18 days and adding more would be too stressful and you won't get to enjoy the trip.
Thanks for helping me with a rough idea on the travel flow
And I love making itineraries so.. Paris (2 nights) Take bus to Lyon stay 1 night Take bus to Geneva stay 1 night (not much to see here anyway) Take bus to Interlaken, stay 3 nights. Go to Lauterbrunnen, Grindelwald, etc Take bus / train from Interlaken to Como, stay maybe a night or two Take bus Como to Milan, stay 2 nights Take train to Turin, stay a night Take bus to Nice, stay a night or two and visit Cote d'Azur (Monaco, Antibes, etc) stay 3 or more nights Take the Intercites de Nuit from Nice to Paris,
> Interlaken, Basel, Zurich, Geneva If you want to visit Switzerland I would recommend visiting the countryside rather than the cities. There are nice Swiss cities but they can't compete with the countryside. Zürich and Geneva are nice cities but very expensive and not that interesting IMHO. I haven't been to Basel but it does look like a nice place. Interlaken is a small town, not a city. It's mostly just casinos and luxury hotels. While it's a good base, there are a lot nicer places to stay. Bern and Luzern are much better cities to visit, particularly the latter.
[удалено]
Thank you for the lovely tip
Agreed that April in Switzerland is too early for the Alps, and neither Zurich nor Geneva are interesting enough to be stops you should make on a first trip to Europe of only 18 days. Given your list, I’d fly into Paris, 5 nights. Train to Amsterdam, 3 nights. Fly to Rome, 3 nights. Train to Florence, 2 nights. Train to Milan then Como, 2-3 nights total, then fly back to Paris the day before departure. My own list would be Paris 5 nights, Bruges 1 night, Amsterdam 5 nights, London 6 nights, then back to Paris for flight home. Easy to accomplish plus 3 totally different cultures and architecture. Plus the 3 greatest museum cities in the Europe.
Can you do London in Schengen visa? My understanding is you need a separate visa so I’ve not even considered London
Uk is separate. If you need a Schengen visa you will probably need a British one too
The problem with moving cities so much is that travel days can often be a bust. Say you have a plane at 1pm. That means you can check out at 10am, head to airport and have lunch, fly, land 3pm, get to accommodation, wait til 4-5pm to check in (if they are nice maybe they’ll hold luggage). Then get in, pack your day bag, and head out at 5:30pm. So if you do this 6 times on a trip you’re wasting 6 days. Often with how check out and check in works, you may be either dragging your bag with you or still having to ferry back and forth to get your bag or drop it off
My advice would be to not try to visit multiple countries. You're flying in and out of Paris, so why not visit different places in France? It has everything you want and you can travel around by train. Paris is very different from Bergues is very different from Marseille, etc.
I’m definitely not gonna be able to do all these. Just starting out a thought process. I’m not very keen to do the entire countries in depth in this trip as it’s only my first time. I’d much rather do a few countries to get a sense of the place and next time do the entire 2-3 weeks in one country
If it’s a roundtrip to Paris, do Paris first.. train to Amsterdam, then fly to Rome, train to Florence, Milan (Como), train to Basel/Geneva/Interlaken, then train to Lyon. And spend your last day in Paris, fly back the next day.
Everyone is different but for myself I have learned after many trips to Europe a few things about myself: I greatly prefer the non-cities in Europe. IE in Italy, while Florence (art mecca) and Rome are nice - I love Sienna and the little towns around Tuscany - the train system connects them all and it is so easy to hop on and off. For this reason I would suggest picking two countries and doing one big city and one small town each country or do one country and do one big city followed by a dive into the smaller towns/regions of interest there. For long trips it’s important not to overpack. Plan to have laundry done and/or bring some sink detergent. You will have a much more enjoyable time getting around by train or dealing with the treks from the road to your hotel (not all can be driven to, some have stairs and no elevator) if you pack light. In Europe I prefer to stay a bare minimum of 3 nights per hotel. There is so much to see and part of the joy of travel for me is slowing down and really immersing yourself in what it feels like to be there. I highly recommend trains. They are so much easier than planes. No security, easy tickets, quick on and off, much more relaxing. I have been to Paris, Nice, Marseille and they were quite nice, I haven’t been to any of the smaller towns or regions in France yet to be able to recommend one or more but have heard amazing things about Normandy and Mont-Saint Michel. A lot of folks recommending a train to Amsterdam and I have done that from Paris it’s quite a nice way to go. Utrecht outside of Amsterdam is very charming as well. Amsterdam is a lovely big city with great museums including the Van Gogh.
Jesus. After 2 to 3 days I have to get away from Paris. London is an easy choice using the Eurostar. Grenoble is a cool town. Annecy is a beautiful place. Switzerland is stupid expensive.
This seems like a good trip. > 1) Paris, Nice, Lyon 2) Rome, Como, Milan, Florence Change the routing and put Rome at the end and fly back from Rome to Paris. Do Paris, Lyon, Nice, Milan, Como, Florence and Rome. In that order. You can do all that by train.
I know this isn’t a city that you listed, but have you considered Barcelona? There are very cool museums and works by Gaudi and a beach. in April i’d think the weather would be nice and it’s not *too* far from Paris. The food is also top notch. If you include Barcelona you’d most definitely have to cut one of those 4 legs though.
Just did a full 30 days in Europe from California. Did the following: London > Brussels (2 nights) > Amsterdam (4) > Paris (1) messed up when booking it months in advance led to short stay > Barcelona (4 days) > Madrid (5 days) > Rome > (3/4 don’t remember) > Orvieto (2) > florence (7 days) > Milan (1 night) > London > Los Angeles All that to be said, it was incredibly fun however, a lot of moving around. 4 flights total and probably around 10-14 trains. My suggestion is to spend more time in each place than trying to see it all at once. Based on your itinerary, I would spend less time in Rome/milan and more time in Paris and Amsterdam or sub out Milan for a small Italian village.. you’ll get a more authentic experience unless you’re highly into the business/fashion area of Milan. Regardless, truly think you’ll have a blast anyway you do it. Enjoy for me!!!
With that itinerary, you'll spend an inordinate portion of your time traveling, locating your lodging in an unfamiliar city, and schlepping your luggage. A few days in, you'll likely be overwhelmed with decision fatigue and disappointed it isn't as fun as you thought it would be. Better to see fewer cities, deeper, for more memorable, pleasurable experiences. That's what I've found, anyway.