This is our second trip to Europe. Two years ago we visited part of France and loved it. We are husband and wife and semi retired. We are very active and like varied holidays. I have posted a forum about 23 days in Italy but now thinking whether we should reduce this time and also visit one other country with the majority of the time in Italy. We are flying from New Zealand.
We have around 24 days all up. Should we spend all this time in Italy or some time like 4-5 in Croatia or other.

well, it's difficult for us to help you to make this decision - you certainly have time to go somewhere else but that would mean missing out something in Italy - your choice.

you would also have to work out the logistics of getting there - did you know that you can get a boat across the Adriatic?

for example ferries run from Venice to several places on the Croatian coast:

http://www.directferries.co.uk/ferri...to_croatia.htm

you'd also need to work out how this fits in with your flights into and out of Europe.

You could easily spend all 24 days in Italy and have a varied experience. From Milan in the north, Venice, Florence, Rome, The Amalfi Coast, Capri....and so on. All are in Italy, but each is completely different. And there's countryside to explore.

You didn't say what time of year you are traveling and that will certainly play a part in the choices you make in your itinerary.

thanks, interesting comment about ferries. So we could leave venice and pop over for a few nights as a taster.

halfapair good points.Thanks. Late april/may or late Sept/Oct.

No bad decisions here, just difficult ones!

I, personally, would not try to give Croatia just 4 or 5 days -- it is large and diverse, and it is hard to see the highlights with even just 2 weeks. (I gave it 3 weeks, plus a week for neighboring parts of what was once Yugoslavia.)

Too, I find that there is often surprising diversity within a single country. To illustrate with reference to Italy: Venice is unlike Rome is unlike anywhere in Sicily is unlike the Amalfi Coast is unlike Puglia, etc. I think it is easy for someone who is from the U.S., and perhaps New Zealand, to realize that any one country in Europe today is almost certainly a conglomeration of areas that were separate realms for centuries.

I enjoy exploring those differences. And I find a few benefits to doing so:
- Although I only try to learn enough of the local language to be civil, I am SO very bad at learning languages that even learning the basic civilities of a single country is as much as I can handle before any one trip!
- Even leaving the language aside, there are norms and rules that differ across countries, so I find it easier to manage trips that don't cross borders -- things like how train and bus stations are organized, tipping norms, even menus.
- Because some things are similar within a single country, I find it easier to see and appreciate the differences.
- And as a rule, by staying in one country, I minimize the time I spend traveling between destinations and so maximize the time I have to actually see and experience the places I do visit.

Again, no wrong answer here! Hope this response helps!

thanks for that, your comments are helpful

Oops! I meant <b>difficult</b> to realize, not easy!

Kja makes such good points. Today it is hard to imagine there being no Italy, but it only became a nation in or about 1861. Prior to that it was Kingdoms, Dukedoms, City states, etc. Though now United, many areas still have a very unique feel, and are so different in some ways, they seem almost like little countries still. All the time in Italy, or split it up, you can't go wrong either way, but you would see so much by concentrating on Italy. Think about how quickly it would be used up by an average of five days in four places and the surrounding areas: Amalfi Coast, Rome, Tuscany, Venice.

(@ Sassafrass: thanks!)