|
More time in Florence or Venice?
We are going to Italy for our honeymoon in November. We will arrive in Venice on the 13th, travel via train to Florence, and then to Rome, and we will leave Rome on the 23rd. We want to spend 4 nights in Rome. We know we want to travel to all three places, but just aren't sure about how to divide up the other days (between Venice and Florence). This will be the first time to Italy for both of us, so we would like to see and experience as much as possible. Any advice?
|
Hi Y,
If it were me, 4 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, 3 nights in Rome, especially on a honeymoon. ((I)) |
I would vote for V4/F2/R4. V3/F3/R4 if you want to take a day trip from Florence to Siena or Pisa/Lucca etc.
|
Ira, you've never been in Rome, let alone on a honeymoon... :-)
Logically, I would say 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, and 4 nights in Rome. (There are 1001 romantic things to do in Rome, sitting in cafes on beautiful piazzas, wandering the beautifully lit streets, having lovely long dinners in small, intimate restaurants.) But: If you prefer a uniquely magical setting and seeing the many wonderful forms that art and architecture have taken over 12 centuries, you will spend 4 nights in Venice and 2 in Florence. On the other hand, if the Renaissance holds particular fascination for you, then you will spend 2 nights in Venice and 4 in Florence. Personally, I am not that taken by the art of the Renaissance, and I also find Florence's stone palazzi almost oppressive in the narrow streets, so my vote would be 4 nights Venice, 2 nights Florence and 4 nights Rome. |
Hi Eloise
>Ira, you've never been in Rome, let alone on a honeymoon... Actually, I have. However, just passig through. I have been to Venice (about 8-10 times) and Florence (for 11 nights). >Logically, I would say 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, and 4 nights in Rome.< What laws of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, God, Nature or Man make this the "logical" choice? So there! :) ((I)) |
OK, Ira, "logically" was not the right word.
But mathematics would dictate that if one has 10 nights less 4 nights in Rome, leaving 6 nights, division by 2 would result in 3 and 3. As far as that goes, I have been in Venice at least 10 times, once for a week, once for two weeks. And I've been in Florence, despite the fact that I'm not that fond of it, at least 6 times, twice for a week. So there! :-) |
Having been to all three several times and loving all three, I would spend 3 nights in Venice, 3 in Florence and 4 in Rome. Venice and Florence are much easier to see and enjoy than Rome so you need an extra day in Rome just to do it justice.
|
Venice is so much more enjoyable in the down season, and so difficult to include in almost any Italian itinerary, tip the scales as much as yuo can toward Venice. You are unlikely to have another opportunity to go when it is uncrowded. Firenze is so centrally located, you can easily revisit during future trips to Italy.
I'll change my advice if you tell me that you know that the art of Firenze means more to you than the art of Venice. But if that isn't the case, take advantage of this window in Venice. |
Hmm, I think that if you enjoy art, Florence definitely has more to offer. However, if you will arrive in Europe tired from the wedding and want to just relax, Venice has great ambiance and is a delight to wander. I would suggest picking up a guidebook and trying to decide what are your "must sees" in both locations -- that may tip the scale towards one or the other.
|
KathrynT,
Let me preface my remarks by saying I much more enjoyed Firenze as an Italian city than I did Venice. If I ever go back to Venice, I will probably spend less than a day there, just to see some art and architecture I didn't see the last time I was there. By contrast, I could spend several months in Firenze, I'm sure. But what I want to say is that I don't know what you mean by art, but Venice has one of the five top art museums in Europe, plus the Piazza San Marco, which surely is the most beautiful piazza in all of Italy, it has the basilica, plus Torcello, its scuolas, several critically important churches with important examples of the art of some of Italy's greatest painters. And, unlike Firenze, it has an important contemporary art presence in several important ways: it has the Venice Biennale, the Venice film festival and remains the premier center of the world for glass art. Whew. I get tired just thinking about how the long days I spent in Venice one winter doing nothing but looking at art, and I only scratched the surface. And I thought the ambience of Venice mainly was a tourist trap. Just to provide another point of view here for voshimurask :-) |
It was nearly 10 years ago, but my husband and I went to Italy for our 10th anniversary. At first, we thought we'd do 3 city/regions: FLorence, Rome and Venice. But upon reflection, we realized we wanted to see each city and also nap every day! We narrowed down our choices to half the time in Venice and half the time in Rome, thinkiing that a FLorence + Tuscany side trips would be another future trip. It was perfect. We loved Venice. We were there end of October and it was gorgeous and empty and clean-smelling and dreamy). After 3 or 4 days there, we flew to Rome and when we were over our first 5 hours of feeling "homesick" for Venice, we had a ball in Rome. Gelato every night, strolling through the plazas, amazing eating, and just enough sightseeing to make it atmospheric and fascinating, but also to get those naps in!
It was a beautiful beautiful trip and very romantic. I still get misty thinking about it. So bottom line, whichever destinations you pick, I urge you to consider limiting them to 2. You lose 2 days in travel both ways and you'll both be exhausted after wedding. Have a wonderful time |
I agree with the 2 city plan. It is just overwhelming to contemplate a wedding, then travel/jet lag, then trying to "do" all three.
Rome can totally daunt the first-timer (speaking as one who lived there for a year and still remains somewhat daunted by its sheer wonderfulness!) and adding just one other is plenty. For me, that second city would be Venice because this is a honeymoon. Save Florence for the first anniversary (or the fifth, tenth or twenty-fifth, like us). It will still be there... |
i would spend 4 nites in venice. i liked venice more than florence. we decided to take a 5 or 6pm train so we could have as much of the day as possible in venice. we were there in november. it can be a little chilly. have a great time & congrats
|
Normally I'd say listen to Ira, who I adore, but this time I'd have to say that I can't agree. ;)
I've been to all three, spending one night in Venice, one in Florence, and 4 in Rome on my way to Greece and beyond. If I had the extra time you do -- I'd spend 3 nights in Venice, 2 in Florence and 5 in Rome. 1 day alone will be spent at the Vatican, so you'll need the other 4 touring to see the rest. Happy travels, Jules |
You have received excellent advice above. Venice can't be beat for R&R and ambience unlike you've ever experienced. And for the art lovers, there's lots to see, especially in the churches. Florence is great if you're really into Renaissance art. If not, the highlights can easily be seen in 2 days. Part of Florence's appeal is the ability to take a side trip to one or two or three of the nearby hill towns which are charming and romantic (Siena for example). Luca Garrapa of www.hillsandroads.com would be the perfect guide at reasonable rates. Rome is an amazing city. It has it all, romance, history, art and incredible food. I think 4 nights there would be fine.
Basically, it comes down to how much hussle and bussle you want to go thru after the wedding. With 10 nights, it's very doable to cover all 3 cities as long as BOTH of you enjoy being on the go. Some folks just want to crash after the wedding and would be reluctant to do a mini-whirlwind. If you're up for an itinerary which will allow you to cover all 3 cities using a pretty good pace, I'd recommend 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence with a day trip to a hill town or two plus a winery, and 4 in Rome. We did roughly the same trip last March but in reverse order. You can click on my name to pull up the trip report. Congrats on the marriage!! Dave |
Hello everyone. I am enjoying this thread since I have the same question, but I am taking my 70 year old mother instead of my DH. I have read many times how so many of you didn't care for Florence. Why?
|
uptowngirl,
I cant speak for those who never warmed up to Firenze, but as one who does like it, I just wanted to mention one of the reasons I liked it -- which may be the same reason others don't: Firenze is and has been for centuries a city of wealth, commerce and government administration. Italians get up there, put on suits, and go to work. It's not a playground or a dreamscape. What I enjoya about both Firenze and Rome is the startling juxtaposition of dead cultures and a very lively modernity. Tourists have a lot of fan, and always have, putting on masks and dancing in the theatrical backdrop of Venice. Firenze is 21st century Italian city. But the real reason I posted again here was because I thought my previous remarks may have come across as harsh. What I really was trying to convey to youshimurask is that if you really care about the art in Venice, it is easier to see and appreciate in the less crowded months. |
But I've always thought there were two kinds of people in the world: Those who liked San Francisco, Boston, London and Venice, and those who like New York, Paris,, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Rome.
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!! I know there's no one or two types. |
These comparison threads are always the same thing. The Venice/Florence/Rome lovers battling for position.
Yoshimurask, it's purely personal preference. Do some guidebook research and decide for yourself which city offers what you're most interested in and how to divide the days. Note the days museums you want to visit will be closed so that you can make a plan for each city. You won't see everything anywhere -- even if you spent the entire time in one place. Bear in mind that you lose about half a day moving from city to city, but it's possible to check out of your hotel, leave your bags to retrieve later, and catch a late afternoon train. And just to register my vote(s), Rome, Florence, Venice (in that order of preference). My husband and I will be in Florence and Rome for our anniversary (#28) this year. |
Hmm, in response to my posting about art in Florence, I guess I just find Michaelangelo's David and Botticelli's beautiful paintings pretty hard to beat. It's not that Venice doesn't have great art, but I think it is its other wonderful qualities that make it so special.
|
KathrynT,
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm not really all that keen on either Michaelangelo or Botticelli. But having said that, I still preferred my time in Firenze over my time in Venice, even though I find the artworks of Venice extraordinary. Firenze has better food, street life, a more authentically Italian culture and a life of its own beyond tourism. Jean, I agree with you -- and what's interesting is that I can't recall seeing any two other cities so constantly compared or presented as "either/or" choices. To me, it's like saying "Athens or Istanbul?" For centuries, Venice was a party destination for the affluent, but it's probably only been in the 20th c. that going-to-Florence-to-see-the-art became such a pressure on people. And now both have become entrained in the go-to-Italy-but-just-wander-around-and-eat-gelato agenda. Maybe opening up Sicily to tourism will help sort out this out! |
Nessundorma,
I don't like to disagree with you, but through at least the second half of the 19th century, Florence was <b>the</b> place where all the British (and some Americans like Henry James) went to see art. The Anglo community in Florence in the 19th century was huge. Of course, Henry James also spent a lot of time in Venice. And I also respectfully disagree with you that Venice is only a tourist trap. One can get away from the mobs easily, in Dorsoduro or Castello, and still have easy access to all the great art (which I was happy to see you did acknowledge and appreciate). I know from personal experience that Sicily is the coming thing. Every year I go back, there seem to be more tourists there. But oh! there is <b>so</b> much to see and do in addition to eating gelato (although Sicilian gelato is superb!) Anyone who ever invaded anywhere in the Mediterranean invaded Sicily, and they have all left their traces: the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Normans, the Swabians, the Spanish Bourbons. Sicily is one huge palimpsest of cultures, a fascinating place! |
Author: yoshimurask
Date: 03/13/2006, 03:43 pm We are going to Italy for our honeymoon in November. We will arrive in Venice on the 13th, travel via train to Florence, and then to Rome, and we will leave Rome on the 23rd. We want to spend 4 nights in Rome. We know we want to travel to all three places, but just aren't sure about how to divide up the other days (between Venice and Florence). This will be the first time to Italy for both of us, so we would like to see and experience as much as possible. Any advice? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: ira Date: 03/13/2006, 03:47 pm Hi Y, If it were me, 4 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, 3 nights in Rome, especially on a honeymoon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: mjs Date: 03/13/2006, 03:59 pm I would vote for V4/F2/R4. V3/F3/R4 if you want to take a day trip from Florence to Siena or Pisa/Lucca etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Eloise Date: 03/13/2006, 04:01 pm Ira, you've never been in Rome, let alone on a honeymoon... Logically, I would say 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, and 4 nights in Rome. (There are 1001 romantic things to do in Rome, sitting in cafes on beautiful piazzas, wandering the beautifully lit streets, having lovely long dinners in small, intimate restaurants.) But: If you prefer a uniquely magical setting and seeing the many wonderful forms that art and architecture have taken over 12 centuries, you will spend 4 nights in Venice and 2 in Florence. On the other hand, if the Renaissance holds particular fascination for you, then you will spend 2 nights in Venice and 4 in Florence. Personally, I am not that taken by the art of the Renaissance, and I also find Florence's stone palazzi almost oppressive in the narrow streets, so my vote would be 4 nights Venice, 2 nights Florence and 4 nights Rome. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: ira Date: 03/13/2006, 04:06 pm Hi Eloise >Ira, you've never been in Rome, let alone on a honeymoon... Actually, I have. However, just passig through. I have been to Venice (about 8-10 times) and Florence (for 11 nights). >Logically, I would say 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence, and 4 nights in Rome.< What laws of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, God, Nature or Man make this the "logical" choice? So there! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Eloise Date: 03/13/2006, 04:28 pm OK, Ira, "logically" was not the right word. But mathematics would dictate that if one has 10 nights less 4 nights in Rome, leaving 6 nights, division by 2 would result in 3 and 3. As far as that goes, I have been in Venice at least 10 times, once for a week, once for two weeks. And I've been in Florence, despite the fact that I'm not that fond of it, at least 6 times, twice for a week. So there! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: mamc Date: 03/13/2006, 04:49 pm Having been to all three several times and loving all three, I would spend 3 nights in Venice, 3 in Florence and 4 in Rome. Venice and Florence are much easier to see and enjoy than Rome so you need an extra day in Rome just to do it justice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: nessundorma Date: 03/13/2006, 04:55 pm Venice is so much more enjoyable in the down season, and so difficult to include in almost any Italian itinerary, tip the scales as much as yuo can toward Venice. You are unlikely to have another opportunity to go when it is uncrowded. Firenze is so centrally located, you can easily revisit during future trips to Italy. I'll change my advice if you tell me that you know that the art of Firenze means more to you than the art of Venice. But if that isn't the case, take advantage of this window in Venice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: KathrynT Date: 03/13/2006, 05:06 pm Hmm, I think that if you enjoy art, Florence definitely has more to offer. However, if you will arrive in Europe tired from the wedding and want to just relax, Venice has great ambiance and is a delight to wander. I would suggest picking up a guidebook and trying to decide what are your "must sees" in both locations -- that may tip the scale towards one or the other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: nessundorma Date: 03/13/2006, 05:16 pm KathrynT, Let me preface my remarks by saying I much more enjoyed Firenze as an Italian city than I did Venice. If I ever go back to Venice, I will probably spend less than a day there, just to see some art and architecture I didn't see the last time I was there. By contrast, I could spend several months in Firenze, I'm sure. But what I want to say is that I don't know what you mean by art, but Venice has one of the five top art museums in Europe, plus the Piazza San Marco, which surely is the most beautiful piazza in all of Italy, it has the basilica, plus Torcello, its scuolas, several critically important churches with important examples of the art of some of Italy's greatest painters. And, unlike Firenze, it has an important contemporary art presence in several important ways: it has the Venice Biennale, the Venice film festival and remains the premier center of the world for glass art. Whew. I get tired just thinking about how the long days I spent in Venice one winter doing nothing but looking at art, and I only scratched the surface. And I thought the ambience of Venice mainly was a tourist trap. Just to provide another point of view here for voshimurask -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: kflodin Date: 03/13/2006, 06:21 pm It was nearly 10 years ago, but my husband and I went to Italy for our 10th anniversary. At first, we thought we'd do 3 city/regions: FLorence, Rome and Venice. But upon reflection, we realized we wanted to see each city and also nap every day! We narrowed down our choices to half the time in Venice and half the time in Rome, thinkiing that a FLorence + Tuscany side trips would be another future trip. It was perfect. We loved Venice. We were there end of October and it was gorgeous and empty and clean-smelling and dreamy). After 3 or 4 days there, we flew to Rome and when we were over our first 5 hours of feeling "homesick" for Venice, we had a ball in Rome. Gelato every night, strolling through the plazas, amazing eating, and just enough sightseeing to make it atmospheric and fascinating, but also to get those naps in! It was a beautiful beautiful trip and very romantic. I still get misty thinking about it. So bottom line, whichever destinations you pick, I urge you to consider limiting them to 2. You lose 2 days in travel both ways and you'll both be exhausted after wedding. Have a wonderful time -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: LJ Date: 03/13/2006, 06:34 pm I agree with the 2 city plan. It is just overwhelming to contemplate a wedding, then travel/jet lag, then trying to "do" all three. Rome can totally daunt the first-timer (speaking as one who lived there for a year and still remains somewhat daunted by its sheer wonderfulness!) and adding just one other is plenty. For me, that second city would be Venice because this is a honeymoon. Save Florence for the first anniversary (or the fifth, tenth or twenty-fifth, like us). It will still be there... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: mwoodrowe Date: 03/13/2006, 06:40 pm i would spend 4 nites in venice. i liked venice more than florence. we decided to take a 5 or 6pm train so we could have as much of the day as possible in venice. we were there in november. it can be a little chilly. have a great time & congrats -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: jules4je7 Date: 03/13/2006, 06:40 pm Normally I'd say listen to Ira, who I adore, but this time I'd have to say that I can't agree. I've been to all three, spending one night in Venice, one in Florence, and 4 in Rome on my way to Greece and beyond. If I had the extra time you do -- I'd spend 3 nights in Venice, 2 in Florence and 5 in Rome. 1 day alone will be spent at the Vatican, so you'll need the other 4 touring to see the rest. Happy travels, Jules -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: dcd Date: 03/13/2006, 07:07 pm You have received excellent advice above. Venice can't be beat for R&R and ambience unlike you've ever experienced. And for the art lovers, there's lots to see, especially in the churches. Florence is great if you're really into Renaissance art. If not, the highlights can easily be seen in 2 days. Part of Florence's appeal is the ability to take a side trip to one or two or three of the nearby hill towns which are charming and romantic (Siena for example). Luca Garrapa of www.hillsandroads.com would be the perfect guide at reasonable rates. Rome is an amazing city. It has it all, romance, history, art and incredible food. I think 4 nights there would be fine. Basically, it comes down to how much hussle and bussle you want to go thru after the wedding. With 10 nights, it's very doable to cover all 3 cities as long as BOTH of you enjoy being on the go. Some folks just want to crash after the wedding and would be reluctant to do a mini-whirlwind. If you're up for an itinerary which will allow you to cover all 3 cities using a pretty good pace, I'd recommend 3 nights in Venice, 3 nights in Florence with a day trip to a hill town or two plus a winery, and 4 in Rome. We did roughly the same trip last March but in reverse order. You can click on my name to pull up the trip report. Congrats on the marriage!! Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: uptowngirl2418 Date: 03/13/2006, 07:10 pm Hello everyone. I am enjoying this thread since I have the same question, but I am taking my 70 year old mother instead of my DH. I have read many times how so many of you didn't care for Florence. Why? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: nessundorma Date: 03/13/2006, 08:15 pm uptowngirl, I cant speak for those who never warmed up to Firenze, but as one who does like it, I just wanted to mention one of the reasons I liked it -- which may be the same reason others don't: Firenze is and has been for centuries a city of wealth, commerce and government administration. Italians get up there, put on suits, and go to work. It's not a playground or a dreamscape. What I enjoya about both Firenze and Rome is the startling juxtaposition of dead cultures and a very lively modernity. Tourists have a lot of fan, and always have, putting on masks and dancing in the theatrical backdrop of Venice. Firenze is 21st century Italian city. But the real reason I posted again here was because I thought my previous remarks may have come across as harsh. What I really was trying to convey to youshimurask is that if you really care about the art in Venice, it is easier to see and appreciate in the less crowded months. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: nessundorma Date: 03/13/2006, 08:18 pm But I've always thought there were two kinds of people in the world: Those who liked San Francisco, Boston, London and Venice, and those who like New York, Paris,, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Rome. JUST KIDDING!!!!!!! I know there's no one or two types. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Jean Date: 03/13/2006, 09:25 pm These comparison threads are always the same thing. The Venice/Florence/Rome lovers battling for position. Yoshimurask, it's purely personal preference. Do some guidebook research and decide for yourself which city offers what you're most interested in and how to divide the days. Note the days museums you want to visit will be closed so that you can make a plan for each city. You won't see everything anywhere -- even if you spent the entire time in one place. Bear in mind that you lose about half a day moving from city to city, but it's possible to check out of your hotel, leave your bags to retrieve later, and catch a late afternoon train. And just to register my vote(s), Rome, Florence, Venice (in that order of preference). My husband and I will be in Florence and Rome for our anniversary (#28) this year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: KathrynT Date: 03/14/2006, 02:29 am Hmm, in response to my posting about art in Florence, I guess I just find Michaelangelo's David and Botticelli's beautiful paintings pretty hard to beat. It's not that Venice doesn't have great art, but I think it is its other wonderful qualities that make it so special. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eloise, We're not really disagreeing. You're just a better historian than I am. I should have said since the 19th c., not the 20th c., but it is precisely that Anglo invasion I was referring to. But do note that the Anglo invasion was very much centered on becoming more educated about art ( or at least that's what they said! We all know it was really about Italian men!) Yes, they all also went to Venice, but even there they took the attitude that the primary mission was to study the art. That's a real contrast to the party life of masquerade-loving Venice. Note that out of that party life Venice developed its own music culture, which you scarcely find in Venice. And it has been an international city for a very long, long time. In fact, as a port city, Venice was oriented toward the Byzantine world and reshaped by the Austro-Hungarian empires and Napoleon probably more than Roman Catholic culture, but that's definitely and quite aggressively there too. I really didn't say that Venice is "only" a tourist trap. But I do think that most of its great art is best seen by letting the mobs of tourists go away in November, not by fleeing to lonely corners of the city hoping to get away from the mobs. Those lonely corners (the scuolas and Tiziano excepted), aren't the same as Piazza San Marco or the Accademia. I can see that the era of cheap air travel is opening up Sicily. So maybe soon we'll be having these fierce arguments: Taormina or Siracusa? and a million threads: "4 days Palermo/1 day Cefalu/3 nights Taormina, or 4 days Siracusa/2 nights Noto/2 nights Palermo?" |
Ooops! Sorry everybody!
I hit a wrong key! Eloise, I hope you can find my reply at the bottom of all that mess! Sorry again. Is there any way I can delete it? |
Eloise,
We're not really disagreeing. You're just a better historian than I am. I should have said since the 19th c., not the 20th c., but it is precisely that Anglo invasion I was referring to. But do note that the Anglo invasion was very much centered on becoming more educated about art ( or at least that's what they said! We all know it was really about Italian men!) Yes, they all also went to Venice, but even there they took the attitude that the primary mission was to study the art. That's a real contrast to the party life of masquerade-loving Venice. Note that out of that party life Venice developed its own music culture, which you scarcely find in Venice. And it has been an international city for a very long, long time. In fact, as a port city, Venice was oriented toward the Byzantine world and reshaped by the Austro-Hungarian empires and Napoleon probably more than Roman Catholic culture, but that's definitely and quite aggressively there too. I really didn't say that Venice is "only" a tourist trap. But I do think that most of its great art is best seen by letting the mobs of tourists go away in November, not by fleeing to lonely corners of the city hoping to get away from the mobs. Those lonely corners (the scuolas and Tiziano excepted), aren't the same as Piazza San Marco or the Accademia. I can see that the era of cheap air travel is opening up Sicily. So maybe soon we'll be having these fierce arguments: Taormina or Siracusa? and a million threads: "4 days Palermo/1 day Cefalu/3 nights Taormina, or 4 days Siracusa/2 nights Noto/2 nights Palermo?" |
Nessundorma, I did find your answer, but it took some doing!
And no, I'm afraid there is no way you can delete any of it. I agree that off-season Venice is best; I've been in March and October when it wasn't quite so bad. But even Henry James back in 1873 said something to the effect that Venice was a museum and one could hear the constant click of the turnstile... Venice has been a "tourist trap" since at least the 14th century. In the 16th century, courtesans practically outnumbered "decent" women. And once they introduced Carnevale, in the 17th or 18th century, it became party central for most Europeans who could afford to get there. Still, there's no denying the great art that was produced almost to the very end. I have a personal faiblesse for the Tiepolos, pere et fils; particularly Giandomenico, the son, who clearly saw that the end had come. You're right, also, that Florence never produced music as Venice did. But, despite the great art - and as I've said, the Renaissance, particularly as represented in Florence, is not my favourite period (to my mind, the greatest humanistic achievements of the Renaissance are Palladio's villas - outside Venice!), I find Florence provincial and petit-bourgeois. Basically, I think there are people who favour Venice and those who favour Florence - and probably never the twain shall meet. As for Sicily itineraries, if you put Sicily in the Search Box, you'll already find many, many discussions about how many days in Taormina, in Palermo, in Siracusa, etc., etc. |
I think "lonely corners" is a bit of an exaggeration. You really don't have go very far from the most famous sights in Venice to be out of the crowds, even at the height of the tourist season. And there are many high quality sights within a few minutes' walk of those crowded areas--sights that the daytripping crowds haven't a clue about, or time to see if they want to experience the best known spots.
It really is not a matter of trekking miles through a wasteland to end up in a totally abandoned desert to get away from the crowds. |
Actually, Rufus, I thought you were going to say "lonely corners" was an exaggeration because, no matter how many corners you turn in Venice, you're still more likely to be among foreign tourists -- although, true not the crushing masses you find near the great art works, true.
Many people enjoy simply walking around the canals in Venice, away from the crowds, and throughout Venice there are fantastic examples of Venetian art, architecture and craft. But it doesn't change my advice that if you want to see the great art of Venezia, that's less frustating to do in the down seasons. And maybe if eats and gelatos and canals and starry nights are your thing, Treviso is worth checking out: twice the fun at half the price. Eloise, Yes, yes, to all that history. I don't think we are contradicting each other -- except, of course, I thrill to much of the art of the Renaissance and its intellectual aspirations. I found Firenze filled with young, educated Italians on my visit there. You seemed not to like Perugia for its petit-bourgeois either. I'm never been exactly sure what that term meant or what or who would be something not petit-bourgeois. As for provincial: I like the provincial in Italy! I enjoy the vareities of stubborness. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:23 AM. |