We have never traveled to Italy and are planning a whirlwind weekend to weekend (8-9 days) trip in October. I want to cover as much ground as possible and was planning to fly into Venice (1 day) and then traveling by train to Florence and surrounding area for 3 days. Then to Rome by train for 2-3 days and finally to Naples. Is this advisable? If not, what would you suggest?

I'm leaving on Sunday on my first trip to Italy. 3 nights each in Rome, Florence and Venice... I can't wait !! Taking Eurostar in between each city. This is from the Costco travel package.

We visited Italy for the first time in September 2004. I fought off my normal urge to visit three or four different places. Rather, my wife and I flew into Rome where we spent five nights. We then took the train to Venice where we spent the last four nights. We then flew home from Venice.

It turned out to be the best trip we have ever taken. I learned a valuable lesson that year - SLOW DOWN - even just a little, and you will enjoy the trip more.

Seriously, three spots in 9 days is alot of time wasted moving about. I think Italy in particular is a place where you need to relax and enjoy your time. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask or email me.

dwzemens AT comcast.net

have you purchased your tickets yet? It might help to know exactly haw many days you have once you've landed and before you have to leave again.

The suggestion to SLOW DOWN is the best one.
In fact, the idea of "covering as much ground as possible" in a short time runs against the grain of the way of life in Italy, in which much of the meaning of things is derived from taking your time and savoring the moment. Try to simplify your trip, so as not to rob yourself of this treat...
Maybe you can spend a longer period in 2 or 3 of the cities, and leave something for a return trip.

I'm like Venezzia, but I leave Thursday

We booked everything on our own. I think adding Naples in to the standard "Big 3" in such a short trip would be too much.

I agree - I'd take the time away from Naples and add it to Venice. It's my favorite city of the three. I definitely think it deserves more than a day.

<< Is this advisable? If not, what would you suggest? >>

No, it is not advisable - - unless by "cover as much ground as possible", you mean that you are more interested in the inside of a train than in actually seeing the attractions of (some of) Italy.

I would recommend:

1: Add a day. "weekend to weekend"? Figure out a way to leave on Thursday. Life is short, and it's worth re-examining how indispensable is that one extra day at work (or school or whatever).

2. Fly into Florence - - yes, that means connecting somewhere else in Europe, since there are no trans-atlantic flights into Florence, or even Pisa (bigger airport, nearby; there IS some limited service into Bologna on Eurofly.com - - less than an hour away, if you are originating in NYC). Your first 24 hours in Europe, you will be challenged by recovering from an overnight trans-atlantic flight, new language immersion, new adjustment to money and everything else, and Florence makes for a good introduction - - without "sacrificing" the joys of Venice to your bleary eyes). Stay there two nights (Friday and Saturday).

3. Travel to Rome on Sunday. Stay four nights. Rome is very intense, and you will need 24 hours to get to love the sights, the sounds, the crowds, the scooters... If you felt like you absolutely had to make an excursion to the Naples area (for Pompeii, example), do it as a long day from Rome (and consider staying in Rome one more night, if you do that). Otherwise...

4. Travel to Venice by train on Thursday. Do it over the lunch or dinner hour, and enjoy a meal on board. you have to eat sometime anyhow. You'll have to decide whether to keep Venice short (fly home on Saturday) or a third night (fly home on Sunday). Keep in mind that if you really are indispensable, and need to hit the ground running on Monday - - then there is merit in giving yourself a day to "recover" before going back to the "real world".

"Whirlwind" trips have their place - - but typically they are a better match for those who have traveled extensively in a place, and have very specific objectives - - after having visited for one or more previous introductory trips.

Best wishes,

Rex

ttt...

I think your interests should play an important role here. If you are a museum goer or not is probably the most important factor.

Without visiting the inside of museums (many people do not have much interest in museums) I would suggest the following. You would end up with a nice amount of time to wander around and see the sights without rushing.

Venice. Day 1 & 2. Arrive about mid-day. Spend the remainder of that day and the complete next day walking around. Two evenings are important here(after tour buses leave) and St Marks Sq would be fine.

Florence. Leave Venice on the morning of day 3. Arrive in Florence mid-day. Spend the remainder of day 3 and complete day 4 in Florence. Even though this is not a museum tour, I would book advance tickets for David (since this is not a time-consuming museum visit) and possibly Uffizi (pushing it).

Rome. Leave for Rome the morning of day 5. Get to Rome mid-day. Spend the rest of day 5 and all of days 6 & 7 walking the sights. You may have time for a Vatican tour on the morning of day 6 or 7 as well as visiting some other sights (Coloseum).

Return from Rome on day 8.

I would leave out Naples.
I would not add another location unless you have at least 3 more days.
If you have more days I would add Lake Como (Como, Bellageo) since it's really on the way from Venice to Florence (more or less).

Or you could easily add one more day to any of your big three.

What's probably important to avoid the feeling of being rushed is to spend at least two nights in each location.

I really don't think this is too rushed.

Well - only you know what style of travel you prefer and what you want to do/see in each place.

Frankly - I would be extremely unwilling to spend half my very limited time in Italy sitting in a train - I would much rather see/do somethig more interesting. That would involve picking 2 stops for a trip of that length.

I would do Rome and Venice (although you cold easily spend the whole time in Rome and still not see all of the major sites - never mind enjoy any of the Italian lifestyle - cafe sitting, strolls in floolit piazzas after dinner, etc.)

There is no point to flying into Venice if what you really want to see is Tuscany, Rome and Naples.

Why did you select this itinerary? What does "cover as much ground as possible" mean? Some people like the glamour of adding notches to their travel belt and the jet set feel of zooming into a city, seeing a famous sight, then tucking into a 4-star dinner. If that's your style, give another night to Venice so you at least enjoy the meal.

If you are actually curious about Italy, what are you curious about? Its beautiful countryside? Its flamboyant cities with beautiful girls and boys on Vespas? Its beautiful churches or ruins?Is this a romantic vacation or an educational one?

You are going to have to slow down if you want even a taste of any of the above.