Do they command equal time or one more than the other? I understand that Rome commands a minimum of 5 days to hit the high spots not too superficially and at a swift but not break-neck pace. What do you think?

I'd say equal time..we were in Paris for 2 weeks and Venice for 1..we could have used more timein both. We were in Rome for 5 days and I thought that was plenty. There are folks who adore Rome and will tell you 5 days is not enough time. Paris and Venice are very much alike I think in their charm and beauty.

I have never stayed more than about 48 hours in Venice; I have been there numerous times. I know that there are people who say you could fill a week in Venice.<BR><BR>I'd say half the number of days for Venice as for Paris or Rome.<BR><BR>In some ideal after-life, I will visit Paris repeatedly. And never less than a month on each visit.<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

Since the same ambience doesn't appeal to all of us, can someone describe the difference in the ambiance of Venice, Paris, and Rome? Maybe that would best help me decide how to allocate my time.

Hi Lola,<BR> Haven't been to Rome yet, but it's been described here as busy, busy, busy.<BR> I would describe Paris as a very vibrant and alive city; Venice as a calmer and and more relaxed city.<BR> I would give no less than 7 days to Paris and no less than 3 days to Venice.

5 days sounds good for a first time visit to Rome. It is very interesting, but hectic and can take some getting used to. Actually we have stayed there for three days on four visits, and just in December we stayed there for a week. Three of our visits we stayed close to St. Peter's and the Vatican. This last trip we stayed close to Piazza Navona which was easier to sight see from and more fun- you could walk to lots of places.<BR><BR>Paris is great- Rue Cler area is a good place for first-timers to stay. Lots to see nearby, the Eiffel Tower, Rodin, etc., easy transportation to other areas. Five days to a week would be very nice there.<BR><BR>Venice , to us , is totally different from Rome and PAris. It is much smaller, but with a great deal of enjoyable possibilities available. It is basically low key- no vehicles, just walk or use a vaporetto. You can see beautiful piazzas, churches, museums, historical sites, all a very short walk away from each other. There can be crowds, especially on the weekend, but you can just walk away a little and then , no crowds! We have been there many times, and we never get tired of it.We always stay there at least 5 days or a week. <BR><BR>In each of these cities, plan a day trip to a smaller town or plan to stay in the countryside for part of your trip. You will probably enjoy a visit in the countryside as much as you do the big cities. On our trips we try to alternate a stay in a big city with renting a car for a few days and exploring the small towns. I would not miss doing that.

Paris and Venice are my two favorite cities. The have great differences (size, cultural attractions, sites) and similarities (charm, beauty) but both draw me back as often as I can manage to go. Rome is a must see, the historic and cultural treasures are awesome and shouldn't be missed. But Rome is not one of my favorite cities. You don't say how long you plan to travel but, if you have approximately 2 weeks, you might consider 6 days for Paris, 5 days for Rome and 3 or 4 days for Venice. You will hit the major sites in Paris and Rome and get a feel for Venice. And you will learn what will draw you back next time.

It isn't really possible to do justice to your ambience question without a lengthy, well thought out essay, but here's a shot. Filled with over-generalizations.<BR><BR>Paris. A big modern city, a &quot;leader&quot; on the international &quot;scene&quot; in fashion, culture, the performing and visual arts, capitol of a nation that has been at the forefront of almost all the important history of Europe for 2000 years, but especially the last 400 years. Firmly rooted in historical heritage from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but forward looking in almost everything chic, trendy and 21st century. Stepping stone to a country that is a dozen countries in one.<BR><BR>Rome. The &quot;center of the universe&quot; for about 400 years, twenty centuries ago. Still the seat of the Catholic church. Also an international center of art, religion, sculpture and scholasticism with varying wax-and-wane periods in the time since it &quot;ruled the world&quot;. Crowded, intense, fast-paced, almost frenetic, and yet as charming as can be if you can find those right places and times of the day to hear yourself think. Capitol of a nation that is just a little over 150 years old, and still just one face of a people and a culture that has rarely cared about national identity as much as its leaders. Transportation hub to virtually everywhere else in Italy, and even Greece/beyond/etc.<BR><BR>Venice. A more important city than Rome or Paris between 1300 to about 1600, in commerce, fashion and the visual and literary arts. And still stuck there a bit. Obsessively focused on maintaining a beauty that is from a different era. Generally, but not entirely successful at that. Small, geographically, compared to the other two. Unique in all the world for its aquatic-only transportation and total absence of wheeled vehicles. As a result, allegedly &quot;noise-free&quot; (this happens for a few hours each 24). Barely a real residential home to any actual urban community, and thus sometimes called a Disneyland city. Can be a gateway to wonderful and highly varied other regions of northern Italy.<BR><BR>Hope this helps.<BR>

Lola,<BR>Rome and Paris are large commercial business centers as well as having historical value. Venice is singular and magical. You need to be more specific about your expectations &amp; pararameters to get better advice for your trip. To answer your question I ALWAYS return to Venice and Rome and never have enough time in either place. Paris was a one timer for me.

Lola<BR>First my disclaimers: I am a sucker for travel, I've hardly ever been in a place that I wouldn't want to go back to. Venice is my favorite of all, closely followed by Paris. That's not to say that I don't like Rome very much.<BR><BR>I think the distinctions mentioned above are very helpful to you. I agree that Rome needs a minimum of 5 days. My first trip there was not quite 6 days, and I am a dedicated sightseer, and yet I left Rome that first time with a list of things I didn't get to see or do. Rome is large, noisy and relatively spread out. The metro system stops are relatively few and far between. Buses are slow in traffic. Therefore it takes longer to get from one popular place to another than in other cities.<BR><BR>Paris too, I think 5 days as a minimum.<BR>Tourist central in Paris is much more compact than Rome, and the metro is excellent. In the center there is rarely more than a 10 minute walk to a metro stop, and in many areas you have a choice of several stops within a small radius.<BR><BR>My beloved Venice is small and I read somewhere that the longest diagonal walk wouldn't take more than 90 minutes.<BR>I think a first visit needs at least 3 days; four would be better. A month would be best.<BR><BR>It is true that the tourists in Venice greatly outnumber the actual residents for a good part of the year. Tourism is the only industry and therefore<BR>advance research and travel smarts are especially recommended. Still, strolling across a bridge at 8am while the fog rises over the canals, makes it all worthwhile as far as I'm concerned. <BR><BR>You don't say when you are going.<BR>In summer I believe that Venice is not at its best because it can be overrun with tourists. Many of the tourists are daytrippers who come in on bus groups (including Italian bus groups by the way) or on cruise ships.<BR>In the summer Rome can also be quite hot and crowded, but at least it is not as compact. I've been to Paris in all seasons, and I'd never plan a trip there based on the weather unless I specifically want to see gardens. It's weather is unreliable most of the time.

up.<BR><BR>because it will be back down again soon.<BR><BR>very soon, the way the board is scrolling right now!<BR>

I vote for Venice! We only had two days there, and I'm planning at least a week for my next trip. Paris wasn't as magical to me (ok to be fair...I was jet-lagged, not feeling well, and bombarded with smoke everywhere we went). While I know there are many wonderful things to see in Paris, there are many other places I want to go before I spend time there again. Venice is just the most amazing place I have ever been, and I really want to be able to spend more time wandering from place to place (not that we were lost, of course, just finding very unique ways to get from point a to point b!)<BR><BR>Anne

I like your comments. Paris will be a separate trip as Venice will be a part of an Italy only trip to include 4 or 5 places. It will have to be summer, but to avoid unpleasant weather and hopefully reduce crowds, it will likely be the beginning of June. Can't go sooner or after late August. From what I've learned, I will be cautiously optimistic about Paris and a little more confident about Venice. Thanks for all your wonderful remarks!

I have been to all three (Paris, Venice and Rome). Paris is my favorite city of all (the architecture is amazing, the artwork incredible, and the food to die for). However, since you have decided to do only Italy on this trip: <BR><BR>Venice: beautiful and very compact -can be covered easily in 3 to 4 days (I managed that even while being there during Carnival). Best part of city is just wandering around and getting lost. <BR><BR>Rome: Not my favorite city, but full of places not to be missed (St. Peters, Forum, Colloseum, Spanish steps, Trevi Fountain). The sites are not necessarily close to each other, and you are correct that you would need to spend a minimum of at least five days to cover the sites. <BR><BR>Since only Italy, consider Tuscany (Florence, Sienna, etc.). I would suggest at least four to five days in this region. While in the region, you will probably want to go to Pisa for tower (but just be aware that once you have seen, the city itself is not much). <BR><BR>Amalfi coast -- definitely spend several days relaxing and enjoying the views. Only drawback is the price factor here. <BR><BR> <BR> <BR><BR>