5 days Venice, 2 days Florence, 7 days Rome ?

Do you like to see trains and airplanes, airports and train station? Because a lot of your 2 weeks will be spent not in cities but in transport between cities.

Have you looked at any guidebooks for Italy and your other destinations? They have lots of suggestions for what to see and do.

One important suggestion: buy open jaws plane tickets into one city, out of another. In your case, maybe into London, out of Rome. Such tickets, called multi-city on airline web sites, should cost about the same as round-trip. And save you the time and expense of backtracking to your entry point.

So if you fly into London, spend a few days, then fly to Italy. Perhaps into Florence or Pisa, spend a few days in southern Tuscany (rent a car), the train to Venice, and finally train to Rome. Or London to Venice, train to Florence, a few days in rural Tuscany, then train to Rome.

Where would I go for 2 weeks in Italy?

Since London and Paris make a great pairing for a future trip, I'd leave them off the itinerary for this trip entirely. Too much time wasted going to/from airports, security checks, etc.

You can't see every wonderful place in Italy in two weeks, so you (and only you) have to prioritize destinations and decide/agree on how much time you want to spend moving around, esp. as you say your husband isn't a traveler. For example, you mention Venice, Cinque Terre, Lake Como and Capri. FYI, Venice to the CT is well over 5 hours by train. Venice to Lake Como is 4+ hours. Venice to Capri would take basically all of a day. So, you have to weigh how important any/all of these places are to you.

Generally, I like to spend at least 4 nights in just about any place that has lots to see/do. You may think that's too slow, but we've spent an entire week in some places and still hated to leave, knowing there were things we missed. Four nights gives 3 full days of sightseeing.

Which part of the summer might determine where I would want (or be willing) to go, and two solid weeks of nothing but cities and the summer crowds in the most popular destinations would drive me nuts. For example, the Cinque Terre is now just bananas in the summer. (See photo link below.) You don't seem to be very interested in small towns, but there are museums and churches and archeological sites in smaller towns all over Italy.

http://onceinalifetimetravel.com/wp-...nque-Terre.jpg

Since there are hundreds of beautiful and/or interesting places to go in Europe, just about every place will be worth your time and money.

You have a year to plan so no need to write anything in stone yet. I am going on a trip this fall and still haven't decided on a country. However, I have thoroughly researched three or four places, including hotels. So you have plenty of time yet for research. Stay open for at least a few more weeks, even months. You will need to book hotels a few weeks ahead to get exactly what you want, but certainly not crucial yet.

IMHO, flying all around touching down here and there is not the best use of time and money sight-seeing wise. Same with long train trips to spend only a few hours in a place. For someone ticking off boxes, it does work, but more time traveling means less time seeing and experiencing.

Short (very short) day trips from a base city work well and you seem to like those.
Pick two or three cities you have your heart set on and research what is nearby. Nearly everyplace you can mention has fabulous places nearby you may not know about yet. Examples: Venice has Padua, Vicenza, Burano. Florence has a half dozen walled cities, villages, vineyards, etc. Rome has Ostia Antica, Tivoli, Orvieto, Beaches.

In Summer, Italy will be hot many places, especially most of the cities. Consider going in Spring or Fall. You will have more time to plan if you can wait until fall.

You say you husband is not a traveler. Maybe not, but maybe it is a matter of finding the style of travel he would enjoy. Someone who likes to fish may not like running around all over for a taste of this and that. Maybe they would enjoy slowing down and getting more a sense of a place. Just a thought.

What else does he enjoy or like to do? Food or maybe cooking? Theater? Biking? Boating? Photography? Travel can be more than seeing. I find when we do something, we seem to remember and soak up the culture a bit more. Look for things your husband (and you) could do as part of your trip.

There are cooking classes in many places in Italy. There are recs in trip advisor for fly fishing excursions in beautiful rivers in Tuscany. Look at Fly Fishing Italy. He could take a rowing lesson on a gondola in Venice. You could bike the walls of Lucca. You could take in great theater in London. You can rent long boats in England. There are many lakes where you can rent boats. Attend a concert in the Church for which it was composed.

See great cathedrals, museums, fountains, etc., but consider doing a few things too.

<i>For those that replied about Rome-thanks. I was just curious. My husband and I are Catholic and I was a Classics major so Rome's probably the most important on the trip</i>

Vatican City will be at least a day for you then.

Venice for me was the Peggy G and the Naval Museum, then walking the alleys in the early am and evening, taking the vaps around the place and avoiding shops. We all seek different things but Venice needs at least 2 nights.

I'd do London (and 2 nights is not enough), what with jet lag and getting used to a different country your DH will need 4 nights.

Then fly to Venice
Then train to Florence/Siena/Lucca and finally
Train to Rome.

For my first time in Italy (I'm thinking about your DH) I'd stay in the north, the south is another country.

Compiègne is less than an hour from Paris, so either you visited somewhere else or your memory is faulty. At any rate, if it was Compiègne and it made a nice impression, why are you going back to focus on nothing but big cities?

Europe is chock full of small and breathtakingly wonderful towns and villages. If that's what really appeals to you, build a trip around that, maybe including some lakes to fish in for your DH.

As for Venice, I never know how to answer these questions. When you have a place like that that has been around for thousands of years and been the epicenter of history, well, yes, of course it's got a few things going for it. If such things don't interest you, though, that's fine. Do something else - it's not as though there's a shortage of possibilities.

Regarding Venice, some people (me) love it, some loathe it. You won't know until you've been there, but rather than risk wasting days on this fairly short trip, I'd leave it for another time.

Thank you all for the further replies.

Here are some of mine:

We have to go in July. I'm a teacher, and I know that's the busiest time of year.

We actually went about 40 minutes past Compiegne to a teeny tiny village in the middle of nowhere. Compiegne was the closest "city."

I seems like Venice is far but most of your are mentioning it so it seems well worth it. Perhaps we will skip Florence and do Venice instead. I'd love to see Verona and I know that is near Venice too (I'm a high school English teacher who teaches Romeo and Juliet so it would be cool to bring that experience back to my students).

Thanks for the suggestions all. I'm keeping an open mind.

I liked Venice much more than I expected to! We spent a half day on the island of Lido, and also a "trip" to Murano where we met the most amazing artist. Peggy Guggenheim is a must, as is the Rialto Market, wandering and getting lost, taking the Traghetto to cross the canal.... It's like wandering on a movie set.
Venice, Florence, Rome is perfect for 2 weeks. We took day trips to Siena and Ostia Antica.

If I had a spouse who doesn't travel much I personally would not drag him all over w/ multiple airports/flights/trains.

I'd introduce him to international travel <i>gently</i>. Two weeks - two destinations (three absolute max). Settle in and do easy/interesting day trips and return 'home' each evening. No packing/unpacking over an over, dealing w/ airport security, long train rides.

London + Paris or Paris + Venice or London + Venice + Rome or whatever. But that would be IMO/IME a lot less stressful.

>>If I had a spouse who doesn't travel much I personally would not drag him all over w/ multiple airports/flights/trains.<<

He actually is the one wanting to go to 2343544543 cities and spend one day in each one, and I'm trying to tell him that we can't do all of those things.

I keep trying to talk him out of Paris so we can just stay in Italy but he's pretty fixed on doing London, Paris and Italy. So seeing what is feasible in Italy is the hard part. We also aren't totally sure how much time he can get off. He can get at least 2 weeks but it's possible we could get a couple more days which would make a huge difference. Obviously we are still in the brainstorming phase.

Well then -- let him have is way and teach him a lesson

Not really, that would be a HUGE waste of both time and money.

Good Luck . . .

Venice for me was the Peggy G and the Naval Museum, then walking the alleys in the early am and evening, taking the vaps around the place and avoiding shops. We all seek different things but Venice needs at least 2 nights.>>

one of the joys of Venice is that there is something for everyone - the romance of the canals [and a gondola ride if you must] wonderful art and architecture, tiny alleys and squares to explore, the magic of the lagoon and the islands, and walking, walking, walking. oh yes, and the food.

And if that's not enough to whet your appetite, then you should know that the water level gets higher every year, and one year, it might just not be there, so IMO it's worth prioritising now.

Rome is also going to be a must, but perhaps not too long there; it will be hot, it will be crowded.

In between I would think about somewhere smaller, perhaps a hill town, which you can use as a base for touring; perhaps get the train from Venice to Verona, spend a night there then pick up a car and drive to one of the small Tuscan cities or towns?

Who knows, your DH might even find a lake to do some fishing - perhaps that would persuade him to concentrate on Italy on this trip.

<Perhaps we will skip Florence and do Venice instead.>

That's what I did. I could easily spend two weeks in Venice alone.

One trip we had a printed out walking tour guide (I don't remember but it was a woman who published it). It had the various site, monuments, parks, etc. all marked and suggested routes of various length. Since seem interested in knowing WHAT you are looking at, you might enjoy doing something like that a few times.

If you're not a big fan of Renaissance art and architecture, churches and museums, you may not enjoy Florence as much as Venice, which to my mind has something to appeal to everybody.

We spent 12 nights in Italy last year. It was a tough decision, but we chose to skip Venice, as it felt like the "outlier" city on our trip.

Here's a link to my trip report if you'd like more detail.
http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...y-may-2015.cfm

Lee Ann