First time to Italy-Need advice!!
 

My husband and I are planning a 2 week trip to Italy in 2006. We would like to visit Rome, Florence and Venice. I'm wondering what the best way to travel to these three places. Is is best to fly into Rome and fly out of Venice (the last stop). Or is it easier to fly in and out of Rome?

Hi J,

I would fly into Venice and exit from Rome.

Venice is calmer than Rome and gives you a chance to get acclimated before facing the hustle and bustle.

((I))

Thanks Ira - Do you think 2 weeks is enough time to see all 3 places. Rome is where we want to spend the most time.

I disagree with Ira. I prefer the Rome-Florence-Venice route. I think the excitement of Rome is a great introduction and a great way to start a trip to Italy, and the relaxation, ease and joy of Venice are a great way to end the trip.
And, yes, two weeks gives you enough time to enjoy all three cities.

Hi J,

>Do you think 2 weeks is enough time to see all 3 places. Rome is where we want to spend the most time. <

2 weeks is lovely for the Big 3.

I suggest: Fly into Venice (3 days), train to Florence (4 days with a daytrip to Siena), train to Rome (7 days with a daytrip to Orvieto).

Train schedules, prices and tickets are at www.trenitalia.com.

((I))

I would also recommend not finishing in Rome as it is likely to be the most tiring.

Another consideration is whether flights to Rome/Venice/Pisa/Florence are all easily available from wherever you live ? If it's more straightforward just to fly to & from Rome, I'd be inclined to do that & get trains in Italy - v. reliable & q. cheap.

Two weeks is wonderful. I tend to like to travel quietest to most intense. So I would go from Venice to Rome... but that is a personal style. I like to unwind and recover from jet lag in the most quiet setting. And I agree with Ira on the day trip to Orvieto (a very easy train trip). It's a lovely town (you could even overnight here as it is a stop on the train from Florence to Rome).

Contrarian here: I favor Florence as a starting point, even though it does mean a modest (95 minutes by train) backtrack. Rome is too hectic a start for many first-time Italy visitors... and Venice is so special, it seems a pity to give it those first 24-48 hours when you are adapting to that sleep-deprived transatlantic time-zone-change experience.

With two weeks, you even have some time for out in the country change of pace - - allow yourself no fewer than 3 or 3 nights away from scooters and noise (of course, Venice gives you that too) in a more rural or small town setting.

Best wishes,

Rex

If you're used to big cities and thrive in them, it won't matter when you experience Rome. If not, I would recommend going to Rome first. You'll have the adrenaline of being in your new adventure for those first few days. You may be a bit tired by the end of your 2 weeks if you save it.

I guess I'm in the minority here but I personally found Florence to be much more hectic (not to mention crowded and congested) than Rome. We went to Florence first, then Rome, and I wish we would have done the opposite. But I really don't think it matters too much what order you put the three cities in, as long as you give each adequate time.

Tracy

I flew into Venice and out of Rome and it was great. Definitely fly into one and out of the other. If you fly into/out of Rome, backtracking from Venice to Rome wastes your last day in Italy. Also, as someone else mentioned, check the connections. Sometimes they are very different depending on where you fly into and out of. Another thing to consider, if it is important to you, is that many of the flights out of Venice leave very early (6:00-6:30 am).

I like Ira's plan, except I would do 4 days Venice, 4 days Florence with the daytrip and 6 days Rome.