Italy Itinerary Advice
 

We are in the process of planning a trip to Italy (my husband and I's first time to Italy!) and we'd like some advice about our itinerary. Our plan is Venice, Florence and Rome in about 8.5 days realistically with our air travel. It will be late May of this year.

Here's a quick rundown of our goals and current expectations:
We are going to have some romantic, alone time exploring a new country after having our first child.
We are okay being busy and sightseeing, we're active people, but we don't want to feel over the top rushed ...
We have been told that more time could be devoted to Florence, and definitely Rome, but we wanted to at least see the "bigger 3" on our first trip since we aren't sure when or if we'll be back. And this is all the time we could get away for so we're making due with what we have.

Our original itinerary was 2 days in Venice, 4 in Florence (with the idea that we'd spend 2 of those days doing day trips outside of Florence) and 2.5 in Rome. After asking people who have gone to Italy and reading some other forums, we aren't so sure anymore.

We are wondering if we should:
-Drop a day from Florence and add a day to Rome. So 3 days in Florence, 3 days in Rome. If we see what we want in 2 days in Florence, maybe we'll do a day to Lucca or Siena. Keeping it mostly touristy and sightseeing. But allowing more time to see the sights.
-Keep Rome at a busy and well planned out 2 days, and spend a solid 2 days somewhere in the surrounding countryside or oceanside near Florence. Possibly allowing us to build in some beach/pool time or lazy winery hours. But making Rome (and Florence) busy and packed tight.
-(if we did option 2, then our question is Cinque Terre for beaches and hiking or wineries and small towns in Tuscany. We know that Cinque Terre is very crowded and touristy, we're okay with that, we love to hike. But we also love the idea of renting a car and exploring the smaller towns and estates in the country and staying at a B&B).

Now - I fully understand that these questions are completely subjective and that ultimately we should choose what we feel we'd like best. However, I just wanted to throw the questions out there to people who have been to these places before to hear what advice or opinions they may have in case anything sparks something for us.

Thank you!!

You really barely have enough time to see Venice, Florence and Rome with your time. Three nights in Venice gives you 2 full days which is fine but Rome has a lot to explore and will need at least 3-4 days which means about 5 nights. Remember you will lose about a half day every time you move. Florence needs about 2 full days or 3 nights. If you have more time you can add it to someplace like Florence for day trips to Luca, Siena, Pisa etc.

It may be worth considering just 2 places with your tight schedule. With limited time in Rome, I'd just focus on walking around the city on foot and seeing the major attractions (Colosseum, Forums etc.) from outside, and perhaps fitting in a visit to St Peters/Vatican Museum in one busy morning.

I agree that trying to cram three venues into an 8.5-day trip is not a good idea, especially as you don't seem to have accounted for how long it takes to get from one place to the next (pack, get to the train station, find the train, get off, get oriented, find accommodations, unpack, etc.). It will take longer than you think when you look at in on paper. You will have no relaxation time at all.

Unless you're big fans of Renaissance art, I would suggest the following:

Two nights in Venice, three nights in Florence, and the rest of the time in Rome. This would give you two full days, and part of your arrival day, to see Florence and also take a day trip. There are some good wine tours and gastronomic tours from Florence that would get you out in the countryside. Or you could go by train to Lucca, or by bus to Siena.

Rome absolutely needs three or four <b> full </b> days <b> unless </b> you're willing to skip some of the more crowded attractions. Otherwise, you'll spend your whole time shuffling along in a pack of fellow tourists, and may end up hating the city. Actually, that advice is good for Florence and Venice as well. Don't let yourself be ruled by a list of "must-sees" when you're in a city for a very brief visit. They're all very crowded. Instead pick one "biggie" in each city and spend the rest of your time strolling or visiting hidden gems.

>>>in about 8.5 days realistically with our air travel<<<

It's not clear what you mean. Can you post how many hotel nights you will have in Italy?

Thank you all for your input and advice. We've heard it, will be removing the day trip idea, and just sticking to the 3 wonderful cities.

If you're arriving in Italy after a long overnight, intercontinental flight, you'll be sleepy and jet lagged for the first day or so. Venice is a great place to get over jet lag, but with only 1 day there you won't see much and you'll remember little of that.

Flying from the US west coast, I always allow a extra day or two at my first destination to get over jet lag.

You still don't have enough time, IMO, unless you want to be racing around for the full 8.5 days. Pick two places and do some justice to them.

We stayed 7 days just in Rome (with a half day trip to Ostia Antica) and we were busy every day. I would go to two cities not three. You also want some time to relax and just enjoy walking around and taking in the atmosphere.

@StCirq and @Taltul - in your personal opinions, if you dropped a city which would you drop?

@mimar, that's a good point and suggestion thank you!

I was in Florence and Venice 35 years ago. I'm planning a trip there this year.
If you're really into art and art history - Florence is the place. Venice has plenty of art too but it is a city with a special atmosphere. If you're looking for romance, I think most people will vote for Venice.
With 8.5 days and jet lag and travelling between cities, I don't think you'll have much time for long day trips.
Wherever you go will be wonderful, I'm sure.