Rome to Amsterdam
Replies: 4 - Last Post: Aug 11, 2012 4:50 AM Last Post By: clementis_fur_cap
Aug 10, 2012 8:47 PM
I'm arriving Rome on Aug 17th and heading to Amsterdam for the 23rd/24th.. travelling on a budget, however, prefer not flying and travelling via train/bus and wanna follow an itinery such as the one following (or something similar):
- Rome (2-3 days)
- Florence & Milan or Genoa & Torino (2 days)
- Geneva/Nancy (2 day)
- Antwerp (1 day)
From reading other threads, I get the feeling that travelling by train is couple hundred euros vs. travelling by plane is much less expensive.. any recos on how i should get from one city to another and as well, in terms of the cities, do you think it's too much, too little for the given amount of time (around 1 week) and/or am i missing much better cities along the way?
Any input will greatly be appreciated.
Aug 10, 2012 8:57 PM
Aug 10, 2012 10:24 PM
2It's not clear from the OP what you're trying to accomplish with the one week trip. The post #1 does nothing to clarify.
Using the OP as starting point, the question that comes to my mind is: why so much time in Rome? It would better fit the plan to limit Rome to one day and add in another couple of cities.
Using post #1 as the start point I'd say scrap the entire list, go do some research on small towns, nature etc etc and add 2 months to the time frame.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that much out, right?
The two combined places the plan into the 'troll' category.
Aug 11, 2012 2:23 AM
3Travelling by train from Rome to Amsterdam will probably be more expensive than flying. However, flying with 2 or 3 stops on the way would almost certainly be at least around the same price, and much less interesting.
I agree with BthDth to an extent. It isn't clear what you're trying to achieve, other than the obvious of getting from point A to point B with a couple of stops along the way. If that's all you're trying to achieve, then all well and good.
Given your list of likes and dislikes, I'm utterly flummoxed by your choices of Florence/Milan or Genoa/Turin. None of those places would appear to have very much to interest you at all. Milan, at least, is something of a dump as far as I'm concerned, and Genoa only marginally better. Turin has little to recommend it as far as I remember as well. None of them feature "sanctuaries, castles, nature & beaches, little towns, local markets and hangin out with local crowd", although you'd get a cathedral or two I guess.
Geneva or Nancy is, frankly, no better. Antwerp appears to be a remarkably odd choice as well.
Given what you say you like, I think you'd be better off heading to, say the Apulia region in southern Italy, hang around in some small towns, enjoy the beaches, whatever, and then fly to Amsterdam. Otherwise, your trip appears meaningless and pointless.
Aug 11, 2012 4:50 AM
4A quick look at this sticky
will probably suggest that you're not spending enough time in any of your proposed destinations. In fact this itinerary sounds like it was taken verbatim from some bus tour.
Your proposed destinations don't match well with your stated preferences--though Milan has both a cathedral and a castle, walking distance from each other. I've enjoyed time in both Genova and Torino. But a day apiece in either Florence and Milan or Genova and Torino sounds like a waste of travel time and money.
Given the time limitations, I'd stay in Rome. Or find the one destination in between that offered the cheapest flights to Amsterdam. Or scrap the whole itinerary and find destinations more in keeping with your interests.
(0 star Hotel)
From US$24.68 per night
(2 star Hotel)
From US$27.52 per night
(3 star Hotel)
From US$320.04 per night