My husband and I are going to Italy for 14 days in June... we have to arrive and depart from Venice... our basic itinerary so far is as follows
3 nights in Venice
3 nights in Florence (with a day drip to Sienna)
2 nights in Cinque Terra
5 nights in Rome
overnight train or final night in Venice

We do not want to be too rushed on our trip, we want some time to relax, yet we want to see a lot.
We had thought about taking out the Cinque Terra and going to the Amalfi Coast (Sorrento, Capri) for a few nights after Rome, but we thought that adding the Almalfi Coast may be more expensive and more of a hassle to travel back to Venice to fly out in the end. We are looking for advice... should we keep cinque terra or skip it and go to the amalfi coast instead?... or should we just stick with Venice, Florence, and Rome for our first trip? Should I rearrange the order in which we are traveling to places or change the number of days?
Just looking for the opinions of those who have already travelled Italy since we have never been there.
Thanks!

Other than your major flaw, not flying home from Rome, I would keep it as is. If you plan to return to Italy--and we all do---then consider dropping Rome from this trip and using those days in rural Tuscany. The AC fits with Rome and gives you a great reason to return. I did not see Rome until our 8th trip. We go back for our 15th in Sep.

Hi there,
My first thought is that you don't need that much time in Rome. My friends and I saw all of the highlights in two or three days and while we were on the go a lot, having more time in Tuscany was worth it. I will try to post more on this-I just wanted to post this while I had a moment. Haven't been to Amalfi, but loved Cinque Terre!!

Something most of us will say is that since you must arrive/depart from Venice, you might want to consider using your arrival day as a further travel day and go on down to Rome to begin the trip.

Thus, you would do Rome, then Florence, then CT, then Venice. The reason for this is that it reduces travel hassles and makes the last day much easier. The first day is usually a wash anyway, with jet lag.

Your itinerary looks pretty good, giving a decent overview of the cities and areas. Will you be driving or going by train between the areas?

You are going to 4 of my favorites.
I would go south first then end up back up north.
Do you know where you are staying yet?
A apartment would be nice...

Here are my recommendations for your 4 stays.

Venice
http://www.knowital.com/veneto/venic...partment1.html

Florence
www.sanlorenzohotel.it

Cinque Terre
http://www.cinqueterre-laposada.com/english/rooms.html
ask for the Sole Y Luna apartment. PERFECTO...

Rome
http://www.hoteljulia.it or
https://www.romesweethome.it/apartme...nt.asp?lang=it

autumnmarie,

Basically I agree your plan looks good. I also agree with Dave that you should just go ahead and fly/train to Rome to start on that arrival day.

For my personal preferences, I would take a night from Florence and add it to either Venice or the Cinque Terre. These areas are more relaxing than Florence or Rome.

You'll love Italy! Buon viaggio

Reverse the itinerary and visit Venice last. After 10 days in the other towns, the car-free peacefulness of Venice will be very pleasant.

I also agree with the suggestion to remove a day from Florence and add it to one of your other locations.

I agree with making day one a travel day and continuing on to Rome from Venice. You can hop a quick flight on Airone for about E50. Then I would work my way back ending in Venice. Much more relaxing.

Another vote for reversing the itinerary. Also , since you are already at the airport, fly from Venice to Rome rather than train.

Hi AU,

Nice plan.

If you can, fly into Venice and out of Rome. It will save you a day.

autummarie:
you are so lucky to have so much time in Italy! I agree with the others that you should start from Rome but I would spend less time there. My 1st trip I spent 4 days in Rome & so wished I'd had more for Florence & Tuscany. So, the next time I did just Tuscany. Stayed 4 nights in Figline val D'Arno
www.hotelvillacasagrande.com
(close to Prada outlet) & a great jumping off point for other parts of Tuscany: Chianti, Arezzo, Siena, San Giminano
Arezzo, etc. Also stayed 3 nights in Fiesole
www.villafiesole.it
lovely hotel and location overlooking Florence. Rent a car & stop by a field of sunflowers or at a farm (fattoria) to buy olive oil...
I'd go to CT - My 4th trip i came from Milan & stayed in Lerici & used the Portovenere boats to travel - you don't have to walk the CT or you can just do part of it. Go to the beach at Monterosse al Mare, see the Oratorio Santa Croce, splurge on a big lunch at the Porto Roca...

I'd save the Amalfi Coast for a separate trip; Naples, Sorrento, Amalfi, Capri. I'm going July 17 for 8 days - can't wait!

Don't miss the Peggy Guggenheim in Venice & if your hotel offers a speedboat trip to Murano go - you don't have to buy anything. But take the city vaporetto to Burano - and an empty camera disk.

don't forget to do the secret itineries tour of doges palace. It's a must see to see casanova's prison cell in venice.

Thanks for all of the advice... I agree that it would be better to reverse my itinerary and start in Rome and end in Venice, but my husband is flying in from a military base and may be delayed a day or two... so that would make it difficult for us to book our accomodations not knowing when we will both be in venice to travel to rome.
Thanks for the accomadation recommendations... checking them out now.
Question... do you suggest staying in florence 3 nights and doing some day trips or staying in florence one night and then going to a Tuscan town for a night or two? I'm not sure what the best way to enjoy Tuscany would be?
We will be travelling by train.

It's a little bit like asking "What would be the best way to enjoy California?" or Massachusetts -- if either of them had the artistic treasures of Toscana.

If you are keenly interested in Renaissance art, Firenze is an extremely compelling destination for church-going, museum-going, architecture study, and looking at paintings, chapels and gardens. It is also a fairly modern administrative city, with lots of noisy, polluting traffic and even more tourists. If you seldom take an interest in Italian art when it is available at your nearest museum stateside, you might prefer a different experience in Italy.

Many tourists treasure the picturesque, well-preserved old wine towns of Italy, where castles and piazzas make a picturesque backdrop for relaxing, eating, drinking, snapshots and window shopping. Many can be reached by bus from Firenze. Without a car, it is better to pick one you think you will like -- either in the Chianti area, or around San Gimignano, or in the towns south of Siena -- and just enjoy it rather than to try to "hit" several little hilltowns per day for snapshot taking.

A walled small city like Lucca, almost perfectly preserved and almost completely car-free, can give you a very strong sense of pre-modern Italy. It is easily reached by train. If you want to be on a hill, amid olive groves and vinyards, Fiesole -- directly above Firenze -- offers all that plus fine view of the city and very easy access to the center of Firenze if you want to see more art rather than drink.

autumnmarie,

If I wanted to have a real Tuscan countryside experience, I would definitely want to STAY in the countryside. A big part of the charm is being in the towns at night when the day trippers have left and the local residents go about their routine. Commuting in and out of Firenze would not be my idea of a relaxing day.

I'm not sure what Dayle is saying. Staying in a Tuscan town is not the same as staying in the Tuscan countryside. And Fiesole is a town.

But to clarify my own post -- I was NOT suggesting taking buses from Firenze to hilltowns and back again to Firenze or vice versa. I was pointing out that if you want to STAY in a Tuscan hilltown, a great many of them are connected by bus to Firenze, so you don't need a car to reach them. However, once you get to a hilltown in Tuscany, I recommend staying in that one town and enjoying it, rather than trying to hop around from hilltown to hilltown.

The only exception would be Fiesole, which is an agricultural area so close to Firenze you can have both the experience of being in olive and grape growing country yet still be within an easy bus or taxi ride to the sights of Firenze.

If your idea of Tuscany are cites of 50,000 plus people that are on train lines then so be it--it certainly is not mine. I love Lucca and Siena and both are worth your time--even 2 days each given the time. But, my idea of Tuscany is Volterra, San Quirico, Montalcino the Abbeys at Oliveto Maggiore and at St. Antimo, and the rolling hills of the Crete Senese. None of these are anywhere close to a train line.
If these names are not familiar to you then buy a good guide book on Tuscany and discover them. One of my favorite books is by Reid Bramblett and he lists his top 10 hill towns--only 2 are on train lines---Siena and Fiesole. A 3rd is Cortona which is only 4 miles to the closest train station. With your short time I would just pick either Lucca or Siena and spend time there. They are truly Tuscan. However, plan now to come back when you have a week and get a car so you can see the real Tuscany--it will take that long.

Tuscany is not an idea or a state of mind. It is a region of Italy. It contains great cities of art like Firenze and Siena and it has little touristy boutique wine farms too. It also has a seacoast, and alps. It has marble quarries and hot springs. And guess what? Any GUIDE BOOK TO TUSCANY can tell you that.

To call one tiny area of tourist-preserve wine towns the "real" Tuscany is to spread ignorance, really. When people come to Italy, don't they want to learn about Italy? Doesn't it start with at least understanding that there are geographical regions of Italy and getting their names correct? And ending misconsceptions that "Tuscany" is a romantic book about an American living under the Tuscan sun in a farmhouse?

It's really terrible on Fodor's that "Tuscany" is being made out to be synonymous with tourist wine hilltowns. They are picturesque, some have very valuable art treasures in them -- but they are not "Tuscany" -- which includes cities, the sea, the alps and much much more than just that safe little corner American tourists have colonized for day trips without a lot of thought.

Also, for other people reading this thread:

Just because a hilltown isn't on a train line doesn't mean (a) it's not pretty and worthwhile and (b) you need to go to all the expense of renting an automatic car and paying for parking to get there. Many lovely hilltowns are in towns so close to towns with train stations you can get a taxi to take you there. Sounds extravagant, until you fill up your gas with Italian fuel, or pay for parking or rent an automatic.

Also, as for "truly Tuscan," the val d'Orcia is a lovely replica of a disappeared Tuscany, made tourist friendly. Truly Tuscan is found elsewhere -- places people stampeding to the val d'Orcia write off because they're insufficiently "picturesque" "quaint" or "cute" -- without realizing that authentic Toscana is happening there.

zeppole - Just because that's what Tuscany is to you, doesn't mean it is to anyone else. It's just your opinion which is what every here is giving. As for getting around by bus, it's simply not easy. There may be a bus to certain hill towns, but they don't run often and not always at the times you need. And why wouldn't people want "snapshots" of multiple hill towns? That's why so many tourists are toting cameras - to take snapshots. Lighten up.