I feel so overwhelmed with information that I'm beyond confused!

My husband and I are flying into Rome at the end of next March and will be in Italy for 7 full days. We fly in early on our first day (overnight flight), and were planning on taking a train to some undetermined place, staying for 3 days, then taking a train back to Rome for the remaining 4 days (we fly out early on the 8th day, so we want to "end" in Rome. Frequent flyer ticket, so I don't have a lot of flexibility). We don't want to spend a ton of time traveling between cities. But I can't even narrow down where to go before Rome!

We like:
Visiting historical sites
Hiking/ outdoorsy stuff
Shopping at local street vendors
Eating
Drinking

Any suggestions, either obvious or not so obvious, are appreciated. Thanks!
Sara

GIven the time of year, I'd forget about doing hiking/outdoorsy stuff on this trip.

Have you considered Florence? Especially if you like art and history. Venice is unique, but travelling there by trian is 4 and a half hours each way.

I second Florence. And you can get your hiking/outdoorsy stuff in along with everything else on your list. Piazzala Michelangelo and San Miniato are quite a hike, and uphill too. I think Florence fits your needs. A terrific city to visit, easy to get to and around in. So many great things there. My favorites- The Uffizi for a live study of 'A Birth of Venus' and 'Primavara', the David at the Accademia, the piazzas, food, vino, markets.

Florence is a good choice, though your first day would be tiring with all that time in transit. Another option would be to base yourself in Rome the entire week and plan on a couple of day trips -- maybe to Ostia Antica, Orvieto, or one of the towns of the Castelli Romani.

The virtue of this is that it gives you some flexibility in the face of March's iffy weather. If you find yourself with a nice day, you can jump on the opportunity and head out of town. If the weather is never very pleasant, you can still have a great week devoted to Rome.

We followed this strategy for a week in Rome last April and ended up taking one day trip, to Tivoli. Had a fantastic time.

Thank you for the quick replies!
Let me add that I'm a total novice about Italy, so hopefully this question doesn't make you roll your eyes...
Does Florence have a distinct "feel" to it? By that I mean will it be significantly different than Rome? My only hesitation on Florence is that it would feel like Rome with different churches and museums. (My husband is voting for Florence, but I think that's because it's the only other city in Italy he can name off the top of his head).

Another vote for Florence if you really want a second city. But a full week in Rome would be my first choice. You can take the day trips outlined above if you decide you want to leave the city. In late Feb/early march two years ago we spent 7 1/2 days in Rome with only one trip to Ostia Antica and left with a long list of Rome sights to see next time. One side trip we considered but did not take was to Tarquinia for the Etruscan history.

Matt- you posted while I was typing! That's a really good idea. I'll look into those cities as well as other good options for day trips, and it might help me narrow this down.

Florence does have a distinct feel that is very different from Rome. It is full of amazing Renaissance architecture and art--like stepping into a fine arts textbook. I love it but not everyone does.
It is really hot in the summer but you would not have that problem in late March
It is possible to visit Florence as a day trip from Rome but I would recommend staying at least one night if you decide to go since there is so much to see.

I think either Florence (if you are interested in art) or day trips from Rome.

You could easily take the train to Orvieto, Ostia Antica, Hadrians Villa, Tivoli from Rome.

Good idea above -- stay in Rome the entire time (7 days will go by in a flash there!) and take daytrips.

I'd go to Venice, no hesitation, for your time outside of Rome. You can get there by train easy enough. It's like no other city in the world.

Or I would simply spend the week in Rome. Nothing wrong with that plan! There's plenty to see and do to more than fill one week.

My recommendation would be to spend the week in Rome and if you really run out of things to do and see, take daytrips like to Orvieto, Ostia Antica, etc. I could spend more than a week in Florence too, and I wouldn't want to short-change either...

Rome is an incredible place and you wouldn't run out of things to explore in a life time. That being said, since you have not been to Italy before, IMO, it would be nice for you to experience some other little bit of Italy. Florence is VERY different than Rome; much, much smaller, different architecture, etc. Plus, if you spend three nights in Florence, you could do a day trip to Siena, another completely different feel. So, my suggestion: Straight to Florence for three nights, Rome for four nights; or (as Suze suggested) Straight to Venice for three nights and Rome for four nights.
Venice is my favorite city. However, I would probably say Florence over Venice for you, just because of the time involved. Arriving early, it will still be close to noon by time you get to Florence & check into your hotel. You have that afternoon to explore Florence. The next two days: visit museums, Duomo, etc. in Florence and do one day trip to Siena. Early the fourth day, catch an early train back to Rome. Even with hotel, etc. You will have most of the day still and three more whole days for Rome.

IMHO Florence is much like Rome, hustling and bustling. It's smaller than Rome but very compact like Rome. Hoards of people, constant motion and noise. If you're really after a different feel, I wouldn't choose Florence then. I don't know about spending all 7 days in Rome though. I LOVE Rome, couldn't imagine a trip to Italy and not visiting Rome but I can stands about 4 days before it starts to get on my nerves. On day 5 I can't wait to get the hell out of Dodge. It's an exhausting city for sure.

Staying one night in Siena on the way back from Florence might be a good idea since the square at night was a totally different place, very lively & crowded. When we were there there was a live concert going on which was great. We were very happy that we had decided to stay the night.

No Rome is very Roman. Besides the unique feel a lot of the sights (Colosseum, Forum, Pantheon, Capitoline Museum) are older than most of the things you will see in Florence. Naturally Rome has sights from all era - but a big focus is Roman.

In Florence much of what you will see is much newer - 14th century and o n - unless you head for the Etruscan stuff -which is even older than roam.

The two cities don;t feel alike at all. Rome is huge, with sights is a bunch of different areas. Florence is a much smaller city and much more compact - most sights are in a very small, easily walkable area.

I would vote for those two. Not sure about hiking in March - you could get nice spring weather or you can get chilly and rainy. And most flowers etc won;t be out yet.

I have a different take than some others on whether a week in Rome is too long. I actually found the city much more relaxing and fun when we rented an apartment for a week than when we stayed for a shorter period.
On a first trip to Rome you can easily get tired trying to cram too much into a few days. There is so much to see that it is hard to limit yourself. With more time we found we could wander and explore at a less hectic pace.