mamcalice

I'm sure I would have returned! And I have, 5 times since the Venice, Florence and Rome trip. I'm not especially stubborn, I was simply presenting another experience and point of view.

karens

I also like the idea of the Big 3 for a first Italy trip.

That's what I did, and I can't imagine leaving anything out. (But I did go on a group tour, and while that isn't a preferred way of travel for me - I did go by myself and it saved a lot of time waiting for trains, getting into the main attractions, etc).

I just got back from my 2nd trip to Italy, with my family. We focused this trip only on Northern Italy. (It was very hard not to include Rome).

I would add the caution that you are going at a very hot time - I would strongly recommend hotels with A/C and to be honest with yourself about how energetic you would be touring around in the heat.

We all have different travel styles. We like to move faster than most people.

I would be very upset doing franco's itineraries, esp. for a first time visitor. All contain very worthwhile sites, but for me, to just focus on Florence and not include either Venice or Rome is unthinkable to me. I loved Venice (both trips), but personally, I think 5 days is too long there.

zeppole

I am UTTERLY OPPOSED to the mentality of "first time to Italy" itineraries. It sets up a false picture of Italy as baby food, then something to chew on, then a grown-up tour -- and that destinations other than the so-called "BIG 3" are somehow less stunning or important or rewarding. Horse Hockey!

The so-called "BIG THREE" totally warps an historical approach to Italy, focuses on sensationalism, gigantism, monumentalism and "WOW" (plus shopping) at the expense of a real understanding of how important Italy has been to American history and how fractured Italy has always been.

Any time you dig and drill deep into one location in Italy you come up with a much more rewarding trip than merely hydroplaning across the WOWSWER sights. But even as a vacation, Italy gives back more to those who linger than those who bomb through.

franco

karens, you know Peter's trip report from his six-weeks stay in Venice (no daytrips!) last winter? And he's going back next winter for, if I remember correctly, two months. Personally, I'm spending about one month each year in Venice, for about one decade already (and I had been there several times, though less regularly, before). All in all, I must have spent one year of my life in Venice, and I still haven't seen everything. Five days too long there?
Of course, everyone has a different travel style, and that's not only fine, it would actually be terrible if not! But there are certain styles that I fail to understand... for example, which reason is there to be UPSET by the thought of 11 days full of gorgeous places and sights, coherent, related to each other, hence easier comprehensible, within short distance, all incredibly interesting and beautiful - just because you don't get to see (THIS time, which doesn't say anything about your next trip) some places that people whom you don't know have defined "must-sees"? Just imagine, you might end up enjoying the Palladian Lonedo di Lugo-Maser-Piombino Dese-Malcontenta-Vicenza-Fratta Polesine circuit more than Florence. But you would be UPSET to see those astonishing sights instead of (also astonishing, no doubt) Florence? Because "everyone says" Florence is a must? Or why else?

franco

Thank you, zeppole (as a slow typer, I was cross-posting with you). I started feeling alone.

Geetha

Thanks all for your suggestions. I know 3 big ticket cities may not be the idea for many people, but getting an oppty to travel every year for 4-6 weeks vacation is not possible atleast for me. I will try and keep more time in 2 cities instead of 3.

dutyfree

The Big 3 in Italy is like anywhere else on the tourist circuit-Egypt/Nile Cruise/Jordan;safari to South Africa with Cape Town and one other city;London/Edinburgh and the Lake Country-well you get the idea?
I agree with you,Franco and Zeppole about really peeling back the leaves on a city or area and know the real deal but these are my observations.

Most people want to go to a country for the first time and do the things that their friends did or saw or they have read about.If you have never been to a particular country before and it is recommended that you rent a villa and "just drive around the countryside"-it will not happen. I see it everyweek on my international flights to and from the US.
People are not comfortable going places "alone" the first time unless:
-a friend has done the same trip in a different version and has basically given them their trip details.
-they are on a tour,cruise or group deal.
-they have friends that have gone before who are taking them along to "show them" the area.
-occasionally there are free spirited souls who really plan and know what they are going to see and do but from my experience it is far and few.
-they are scared to try a new hotel or restaurant unless a friend or tour person recommends it,etc.

BUT-when I have them again on a flight a year later(and it has happened repeatedly these days) they are a different traveler with excitement and wonder about their trip and what they will do/see.

Geetha-you are nuts to do Italy in August! If it is too hot to sit outside and drink the wine and eat hot pasta-its too
da*m hot!!Trust me when I say that you will be miserable and you won't enjoy your trip.There is a reason that alot of things in Italy are shut in August.

Peter_S_Aus

Ah, Venice, love it or loath it!

People want to go to Italy for the Art (with capital letters) or the Antiquities (again, capitalised), or the Ruins (ditto). I guess that’s what we thought we were doing when we visited, putting aside the fact that we have virtually no interest in Art – or art, for that matter. We’d visit our gallery in Melbourne about once every two years, for about an hour per visit. Mainly we visit our gallery because I like getting re-acquainted with the Tiepolo that hangs there, and it’s rather fine.

So, if the OP isn’t much into art, then Florence, which is really picturesque, might not do it. Venice might not do it either, and in July it will be pretty busy. Rome is frenetic at the best of times, and I’ve only seen Rome for a handful of days in mid-winter.

You can see the “sights” of Venice in a few days, or spend weeks there, months there like Franco has, and still find odd, quirky things, things that make you think “well, fancy that. I’d never have expected...”.

The same goes for most of Italy. It does not matter one bit where you go. The important thing is to have a happy time. I think I spent as much time in Venice writing as I did looking and exploring, and had an outrageously happy time. My wife spent her time doing water colours (and trying to persuade me to buy No 1, Santa Croce for her) as she did exploring.

Bumming around has a lot going for it, travelling without high expectations. It helps if you have a place to lay your head at night, after that it is pretty relaxed.

baldrick

So Geeetha... how is your planning going on???

Dukey

First of all, if you haven't made hotel reservations yet you can still do so...I made a bunch of changes just last night and cancelled Rome and booked into a VERY popular place in Chianti so there is still time but it's for sure running out.

I have to laugh every time I see posts that use the terms "tourist swarms" etc. which are obviously, at least to me, DESIGNED to intimidate people like you into doing something other than what you planned.

Please don't forget, there is a GOOD REASON that so-called "tourists" (and do let me add that absolutely NONE of the responders on THIS thread would ever be mistaken by anyone as a meer simple-minded "tourist")...

There is NO reason whatsoever that you cannot do three places in TWO WEEKS...for example, yes, Chianti/Tuscany are wonderful which is why I am going back again next month but get REAL...after you've seen a million cypress trees, the ravishing views, etc., that's great but there is so much ELSE...if you are spending the money for YOUR trip then I suggest you CRAM IN as much as possible and then go back later for the "in-depth" experience that everyone THINKS you just have to have.

Oh, and using a CAR to get to Venice so you can PARK it for several days...forget IT!

Dukey

that "good reason" the tourists SWARM to places is because it is worth it..and that INCLUDES Chianti and Tuscany

jubilada

I agree many people are intimidated to try going places their friends or trusted guidebooks do not tell them, but why encourage this fear?
I know I will never see all of a city, certainly not a all of a country, but for me ( I am not trying to indicate what OTHERS SHOULD do), my vacation time is limited and I also want to relax as well as see new sights. So I like to plan a combination of sightseeing and meandering; for us this includes a combination of city and country, not too far apart. In the country we take our time, don't plan alot.
My hope is to come home nourished but also rejuvenated.

banee123

Nice planning....enjoy your journey...and also upload your picture of that place....

zeppole

Dukey,

Your rant completely ignores that YOU are not taking the OP's vacation -- and more importantly, not paying for it. You are rather cavalier about other people's money, don't you think?

You are the only person in this thread trying to intimidate people from giving candid information to Geetha. I think you are seething, not laughing, to hear that your preference for touristy places, filled with other tourists, is something other travelers caution about for the sake of other travelers.

Feel free to share your opinion about loving to go where everybody else does and doing the touristy things, but try not to blow a gasket that other people are not going to feel the slightest bit inhibited about suggesting to newcomers to Fodor's that not only is it easy to get off the beaten track, but with rare exception, those who treasure the experience.

karens

I think the reason most people recommend Venice-Florence-Rome is because they are wonderful places, not b/c they are sheep following a guidebook.

On a first trip to Italy, I could not imagine being 3 hours from Venice or Rome and not going, in order to spend time exploring several towns around Florence.

franco - the purpose of my post was not to tell anyone that they should travel like me, just to point out that not everyone likes to travel the same way. What is the a good pace and itinerary for me is different than your preferences.

zeppole

Karens,

I honestly think you are mistaken. Most people would never knowingly choose for their vacations the kind of onslaught of religious art and indecipherable ruins that are the core of the "big 3". And now that people have learned you can drive away from those places very easily, they do -- in droves. They don't want to be in Italy's cities unless they are car-free.

It is posted over and over on Fodor's that people can't imagine behaving other than the way they behave in Italy. We all understand that. But part of giving travel advice, I think, is to be able to imagine what somebody else might like, somebody not like you. I never travel with 3 teenagers, but I can imagine how they might enjoy things in Italy that are not priorities for me. I can also imagine why somebody would want to see the big 3 their first time in Italy even if I didn't (and I didn't -- I thought I'd die of art if I tried.)

But I do think it is EXTREMELY useful to have on the boards a lot of testimony about how unenjoyable the Big 3 are for thousands of naive travelers, how unenjoyable it can be for thousands of people to find themselves -- not in the pretty picture they saw in the guidebook -- but in a swarm of jostling tourists, how thousands of tourists regret every year they galloped through Italy and remember only their favorite moment was sitting down doing nothing with a glass of wine -- etc etc.

karens

I wasn't mistaken for me.

I took a group tour for 10 days to Venice-Florence-Rome and LOVED it. I would not wanted to have miss any of those cities. I don't get to Europe often, and I wanted to see the highlights. Fortunately, I've been able to go back, and on our 2nd trip, we only focused on Northern Italy.

I've been to Italy 2x and none of my top 10 moments on either trip would be "sitting down doing nothing with a glass of wine".

mamcalice

I'm with you Karens. Although I've been 6x and one of my top 10 might be a marmalade croissant and a cappucino in the Piazza della Signoria.

franco

I guess the problem is just that people who are not familiar with Italy think of it as one country, one culture. Nothing could be as wrong as that. karens, you say "I don't get to Europe often, and I wanted to see the highlights". I understand that, and who wouldn't? But certainly, you wouldn't want to miss Paris either, right? That's definitely a highlight, too, with Versailles as an indispensable sidetrip. Or Istanbul! I for one think everybody's life is sadly incomplete as long as s/he hasn't been to Istanbul. Same goes for Venice, no doubt, and for Rome. What I don't understand, though, is why you think you're missing anything if you don't do Venice AND Rome AND Florence when going to Italy the first time. Paris and Istanbul haven't been included in your first trip to Italy either, have they? Well... and Venice has nothing more in common with Rome than with Paris, but SO MUCH with Istanbul. So why didn't you go to Venice for the first time with the nagging feeling of missing out on Istanbul? This would make much more sense than combining it with Florence, of all cities!!! Just as an example... in a very different respect, also Rome has strong ties to Istanbul, of course, although you'd be hard-pressed to explain the ties between Venice and Rome. Florence, on the other hand, has much more in common with Paris (Leonardo da Vinci, the Medici!, the specific kind of Renaissance architecture, the 19th century overhaul of the cityscape) than with Rome (where more or less the only tie is Michelangelo), nothing with Venice, nothing with Istanbul. And so on.
Italy is not a country. Italy is a planet. Every region and almost every sub-region boasts a culture, a tradition, a history of its own. Differences between Mantova and Brescia (both in the region of Lombardia, mind you!, and quite close to each other), or between Siena and Florence are far more fundamental than, say, between all Scandinavian countries. A Rome-Florence-Venice holiday is like a New York City-Mexico City-Jamaica holiday. Seriously!
So my point is: if you think you're missing something if you combine the Palladian villas of the Venetian terraferma with Venice instead of Rome and Florence with Venice, then you have to include Paris, Sevilla, Granada, Lisbon, London, Athens, Istanbul, Prague and Vienna into your first trip to Italy, as well. All highlights, all unmissable. And all poorly related to each other.

franco

As kind of a preventive sidenote, before anybody tells me about pasta and Italian food... Tuscany, for example, had - traditionally - no pasta except for the Lucca-Pisa-Carrara and the Siena areas, but even there, pasta was never as important as in other parts of Italy: just one among many dishes, not necessarily on every table day by day. While, as far as ties between Florence and Venice, the famous "French" onion soup is actually a Tuscan dish, brought to Paris by Caterina de' Medici. Tuscan primi are usually soups, btw.