I need some direction, I have a choice to pick one of the two places to visit, for my Husband, my Best friend and I, at the end of August for 3 days, None of us speak Italian, so there is the language problem, but if you had the choice between the 2 which would you pick? we are in our late 20's and early 30's.

I would choose Rome. Although I like Amsterdam, I think Rome offers more site-seeing and a better variety of restaurants. The weather will be very warm in August, but the sites are incredible. And for no other reason, gelato!

Definitly ROME. I love the Netherlands and have enjoyed Amsterdam everytime I have been there, BUT Rome has so much more to see and so much more history. When I was there I spent 10 days and just scratched the serfice. Enjoy your trip. <BR>

Katie, I have been to both cities and found them both to be wonderful. However, I have to agree with the previous posters that Rome has many more things to see and do than Amsterdam. The only edge I would give Amsterdam over Rome is the magnificent collection of paintings in the Van Gogh museum.

Both Rome and Amnsterdam are wonderful and have many things to see and do for 3 days. Rome may have even more than Amsterdam, but anyone who can not "fill" three days in Amsterdam must be tired of life. <BR>One thing for Amsterdam: the bars are much better in Amsterdam and you have a better chance of meeting (young) people who speak English. I loved Rome but had a hard time finding nice bars. <BR>Anyway, you can't go wrong with this choice so have a nice trip! (and in August, Amsterdam is full of Italian tourists, so you can even have the best of both worlds!

I have been to both and I would have to agree with most of the others - I preferred Rome over Amsterdam. Don't misunderstand Amsterdam is great (and the Red Light district will drop just about anyone's jaw) but with only three days you can see more in Rome, the food is incredible (much better than Amsterdam in my opinion) and we found some great locals bars where you could drink cheap but more importantly get a feel for the local flavor and if you at least attempt the language they will teach you what you ned to know. <BR> <BR>Either way, I agree, you will have a great experience in either city !!!! Enjoy

Roma! You will only regret having just 3 days. Toss a coin in the fountain for me.

Kati - I would have gone with the flow and picked Rome - fantastic city. BUT then you say you have only three days - if this is 3 days, including travelling, then I would pick Amsterdam as it is a lot smaller and has probably the right amount for that time. Also, if you know that you're going to be back in Europe another time soon then you could always make Rome then. If though, you are happy getting a mere taste of Rome and won't be coming back for a while then I'd make it a whirlwind trip there. I am one of those people who prefers to make lots of time for a place rather than just a day or two. Also, being in London it IS a lot easier to go back another time. The language problem is no barrier - most people in "tourist" Rome speak some English. Just about everyone in Amsterdam speaks English.

With only 3 days pick Amsterdam & leave Rome for another day.Everyone speaks English & there is plenty to do & see, <BR>it's a beatiful old city.

If you're into pot and prostitutes, go to Amsterdam. Otherwise, Rome.

That's about as fair as saying, "if you're into pickpockets and cops with machine guns, go to Rome." <BR> <BR>Here's another vote for Amsterdam.

I would pick Rome. There is much more history there, plus there are tons of cool things to see. Amsterdam has interesting stuff too, but there is also a lot of trash. Go with Rome!!

My vote is for Amsterdam. Rome is just too much for a three day trip. I spent a week there and felt frustrated that I didn't have enough time. Amsterdam is smaller and easier to navigate plus English is widely spoken which alleviates a lot of problems. Pot and prostitutes can easily be avoided if that's not your scene - both are confined to specific areas. Well, hash bars are everywhere, but no one is forced to go in. My favorite things in Amsterdam are the Van Gogh Musuem, a canal ride (both day and night time), the Waterlooplein Market, Anne Frankhuis (excellent), Indonesian rice table dinner, exploring the Jordaan - and I like the red light district - it's different.

I would have to say if you are mobile and only have 3 days, I would go for Amsterdam. The canal boat rides are teriffic, and there are interesting side trips within an hour. It also depends on whether you mind heat as it can be beastly hot in Rome in August. Also, if you are in Italy, there is so much to see in addition to rome that I think you need extra time to explore the whole country whereas Amsterdam itself can be a "stand alone" destination.

Well, we disagree among ourselevs. I'd pick Amsterdam. I agree that there's lots more to do in Rome and the food is certainly better in Rome. The gelato alone is worth the trip. But it can be unbearably hot in the summer, the people are less friendly, and language problems are greater (although certainly not a big problem). I frankly admit that I am not a Rome lover. Perversely there's too much to see and it tends to be quite spread out. Compared to other Italian cities the people are less friendly and it's noisy. And I love Amsterdam because the people are friendly (albeit a bit reserved) and it's so easy to get around. And Amsterdam is just plain prettier. <BR> <BR>Three days would be about right for Amsterdam. Someone said that the Van Goughs are worth the trip and they are, but I'm not sure they're back in place. They were re-doing that museum which is why the Van Goughs were travelling about. But the big museum is also worth a visit for all the Rembrants and Rubens. <BR> <BR>All the postings have made valid points. Ultimately it depends on whether you want lots of history, good food, and a bit of a struggle or a more laid back, friendly sort of place.

Yes, the Van Gogh museum is open (re-opened in June 1999 after a big expansion). <BR>For Rembrandts you need to go to the Rijksmuseum. <BR>

Both cities are great in their own way but if I had a choice I would go to Rome. You will be frustrated that you cannot spend more time but you will alos be motivated to return. If you think that you don't want to have the frustration, go to Amsterdam which is manageable in 3 days. <BR> <BR>In my opinion, English is better spoken in Amsterdam, but most Italians speak some English or enough to get by. Italian is a beautiful language and you will leave wishing you spoke it. I took a small translation phrase book with me to italy and never used it. <BR> <BR>If you go to Rome check out my websight. Its not finished but my path to Romeis ready! <BR> <BR>http://home.earthlink.net/~richardab/ <BR> <BR>Follow the Path - Enter&gt;Fly&gt;Europe&gt;Rome <BR> <BR>Let me know what you think!

Just a thought. <BR>Eating local cuisine is one of the joys of travel. You'll obviously get great Italian meals in Rome, meals that are unavailable in the US. <BR>As far as I can tell, there are no Dutch restaurants in Amsterdam -- lot of Indonesian, French, Italian and fast food restaurants. In Amsterdam, you might as well eat fast food and save your money. <BR>It reminds me of London. There I know why there are few English restaurants, their food is lousy.