3 Days in Italy
 

If you only had three days in Italy,
where would you stay and why?

Rome - because there is so much there.

Is this a REAL question or just a question for fun?

Definitely Rome, because I love the city so much, although I would probably be temped to say Venice because I have yet to visit.

Tracy

REAL QUESTION!!
I am celebrating my 40th next May
and would like to plan a little
getaway without the little ones.
Considering either Paris or Italy.

Paris

OK...

3 days...

Venice or Paris

if you have to go to Italy, I'd vote for Venice...

but I'm a francophile and Italy is down on my list as someday, not a must

Most romantic city in Italy?
How does it compare to Paris?

You have to tell us your primary interests....art? religion? architecture? history? shopping? wandering romantic streets? food? wine? scenery?

Ive never been to Venice, so maybe I cant comment here. But I found Paris and Rome to be incredibly romantic (maybe Paris more so by a smidge)

If you're looking for romance, Paris, followed by Venice. I found Rome fascinating, but not the least bit romantic.

I thought Rome was romantic in the evening. We walked in the city at night...the monuments lit up. It was beautiful. It seems to be a more stressed city - if that makes sense. I thought I might lose my husband when crossing the street - to a crazed driver!
If you are looking for romance though - my vote would be paris.

Echoing missypie...

In France, Paris

In Italy, Venice

most romantic - Venice gets my vote. i have no idea how you'd compare it to Paris (though I've been to both). there could hardly be two more different places.

Hi YGG,

Paris.

You can enjoy Paris on your own.

You should bring someone to Venice.

((I))

ira- though I rarely disagree with your wise advice(!) I have been to Venice twice, once was a solo trip. because of its size and ease of getting around, it is a *perfect* destination for someone traveling alone. i don't know why you say you should 'bring someone'. kindly, Suze

I am not traveling along.
I am bringing my husband, just
not our children.
How about Tuscany or Lake Como?
Our primary interests will be
wandering, taking in beautiful
sights, drinking and eating.

Hi YG,

>I am bringing my husband,...<

Paris, or Venice.

If you haven't been to Paris, you should go. You will be very disappointed if you die and go to heaven without having been to Paris.

((I))

((I))

Ira - if it had to be Paris or Rome, which gets your vote?

If it were me, I'd stay in one of the baroque towns of southeast Sicily because the food is so fantastic and architecture is lovely and there are almost no tourists.

Tying for second choice would be some marvelous old town in the Emilia-Romagna, because I've never been and I hear the food is fantastic, or a grand hotel in Napoli overlooking the bay.

Third choice would be Ascoli Piceno (no tourists, great architecture).

I'd go just about anywhere in Liguria at the drop of a hat for the food alone. But I'd stay in Camogli for the pretty views, the hikes, the boat rides and the possibility to get to know Genova better.

For sheer fun, I'd go to Torino.

If I were going to France, I'd go to Paris. But I'd rather go to San Sebastian in Spain.

I'm surprised no one has asked about what time of the year you are planning to go. That would certainly affect my recommendation.

Do you really only have three days? If so,I'd choose a city into which I could get a direct flight, or at least smooth connections.

Well if we're getting philosophical, if I only had 3 days, since I live on the west coast U.S. I wouldn't go to Europe at all.

Hi Ann

>Ira - if it had to be Paris or Rome, which gets your vote?<

For a 3-day visit:

Paris
Venice
Prague
Florence
Copenhagen
Bruges
Amsterdam
Vienna
Rome
London
Naples
Helsinki
Munich
Dublin
Edinburgh

((I))

Thanks, Ira, that's a lot of help!

Venice would certainly be a good destination for your 3 days in May . . . however I think the Amalfi Coast could also be a nice romantic choice. Capri? Positano? It's all about R&R and enjoying the beautiful views.

I am aware that this is the Europe forum (so I am open to criticism) but
a trip from the US to Europe for only three days seems like a hassle. With jet lag your trip ends up being a two day trip.

It would be really worth it to get two more days, almost anyway possible (bribe friends to look after kids, hire a nanny at $300 per day, fly your mom to your house, get creative).

Or find some special place in the Caribbean or Central America.

I say three days in either city is better than not at all. I used to do long weekends in Dublin all the time. It works out fine - IF - you get a direct flight that gets you there early on day one AND you're not at all affected by jetlag. Just hit the ground running and live it up.

I think your choice depends on what you're looking for -- what are your intentions for this trip? To celebrate romantically? To sightsee to the max? To just hang out in cafes/piazzas and not worry if you see big sights? I didn't find Rome at all romantic, but both Venice and Paris are extremely so. But let me throw a fly in the ointment here and say I think Florence is much more do-able in three days, although the chances of a direct flight there from the US (if that's where you're flying from) are slim.