"Rome would appear to be an American obsession."

Good to know that. I thought it had to do with my interest in ancient Roman history.

<< Rome would appear to be an American obcession. >>

Absolutely...all 314 million of us are obsessed by Rome.

<<except if you want to call CDG Paris>>

I'd hope no one would call CDG Paris. What an insult to the capital.

<<Rome would appear to be an American obcession>>

Yeah, that's a pretty daft statement. Only the flippin' Yanks would want to visit one of the world's great cities.

Paris was simply not in my itinerary this time. I have been there before and hope I did not offend anyone by going to Toulouse & Bordeaux on home exchanges this time.

Geez. . . .

I just read on another thread that somebody thought that Rome had ruled "the world".

Of course it is "scandalous" to some people that you wouldn't go to Rome, now or ever. Scandal is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing objectively "scandalous" about anything.

Rome has a lot to offer, but next to Florence and Venice it is a big, busy, overcrowded fast paced pain in the neck.

Of course, one can fly into or out of Florence, as an open jaw with Venice, but there are no direct flights to it from North America so a connection is inevitable. And it is a small airport so the connections aren't always frequent or convenient.

> So does Florence-Venice and maybe CT or a bit of the Tuscan country make sense? Should we play CT by ear depending on weather? What is important to us is 2 big culture filled cities and then some down time.

This plan could work, but for some times of year, you would be well advised to make reservations in advance.

kja - plenty of places for downtime between Venice and Florence - the lakes? [touring Lake Garda on the boats is lovely and very relaxing] - picking up a car and just wandering around?

no need to spend a day slogging over to the CT and then another 1/2 day [at least] to get to Florence.

Thank you all for the responses, I think we are getting a good idea of what makes sense, and at this point we have decided on Venice-Florence.

CT has been a dream of mine for several years, so I am struggling with the pros and cons of going. I understand that the the weather might be bad, and that considering our short stay in Italy it is a long trip to CT, but I wonder if I'll kick myself if I get so close and don't go. I wonder if maybe a compromise is to leave 2 days open and decide when we are there? Or is this impossible?

Have I missed when you are going? During the seasons when the weather is best, you will likely need to have a reservation in the Cinque Terre.

kja-
We are going the last week of April.

I think we will do some more research and stay in the Tuscan countryside for a day or two-is this possible to do without renting a car? Thanks all!

Although I know this is not the norm, I like Rome, but do not LOVE it. There are so many other areas of Italy that I would like to return/go to. However, Hubby loves Rome.

Have fun in Italy!

The Tuscan countryside is possible without a car but the locations become more limited using rail for access unless you want to take a bus or maybe a taxi from a rail station to a smaller town or an agriturismo.

Here is an alternative to consider that compromises a little but would still be a fantastic 3 days - stay in Lucca for 2-3 days and take a day trip to CT. I have not done it but I know it is not that difficult. Search the forums or Google "Lucca to Cinque Terre" or "Cinque Terre day trip from Lucca".

Here is a Fodors thread describing some options on how to do it;

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...from-lucca.cfm

This would mean you only stay in 3 places (2 moves), you get to see the CT and pick the better of 2 or 3 days to do it while staying in a great small city. Lucca is fascinating enough for a couple of days and next time your return to this part of Italy (should we all be so lucky, of course) you won't have to "worry" about getting over to CT and can focus on the more central and southern parts of Tuscany.

I LOVE that idea Aramis! Off to research it...

Lucca is a lovely place, really relaxing.

I can relate to your dilemma. On my first trip to Italy - this past May, I skipped Florence and wondered the same thing! Ok, I felt so guilted that I ended up squeezing 7 hours of Florence into our transit between Venice and Rome (used the left luggage option at the train station). No regrets!

Next trip we are planning to spend a week in Tuscany and either CT or AC. My preference would be to visit a few places at a slower pace rather than hopping from city to city. I think the reason Rome and Venice get such a bad rap is because people try to "do" Venice in a day or two and "do" Rome in 2 or 3 days.

We actually were able to enjoy both Venice in Rome at a slow pace because we allowed ourselves 4 nights in Venice and 6 nights in Rome. I would not recommend less than 3 nights in Venice or less than 5 nights in Rome if you want some down time. Happy Travels!!

I just came back from 8 days trip in Italy. We flew to Milan, took train to Venice, spent two nights there, took train to Florence, had three nights there, rented the car, droves through Cinque Terre and Genova to lake come and had relaxed there for remaining 3 nights. If I will do it again, I will go to Florence or Milan for a whole time, but will stay outside of the city. In case of Milan it is very much possible to combine lake Como and Milan. Make sure to get reservations ahead to see Last Supper. Same with Uffizzi.
Lake Como is a gem, peaceful and tranquil.
Rome deserves its own time.