Hello everyone,

We are trying to plan our next trip and cannot yet decide between Italy and Southern France.

If we went to Italy - is it possible to see Venice, Amalfi Coast, Naples, Rome and possibly Tuscany in two weeks?

If we went to Southern France - is it possible to spend one week in the South of France i.e Aix-en-Provence and as many as possible and then move on to Switzerland for appoximately 5 days or so?

Any advice on these two ideas and most beautiful scenery of either area is appreciated.

As ususal I always start out big and then scale down. Your advice helped make our trip to London, Northern Wales and Paris a great memory last Fall.

Thank you

Karen

>>is it possible to see Venice, Amalfi Coast, Naples, Rome and possibly Tuscany in two weeks?<<

Physically possible, perhaps, but you won't really absorb any of it and it will all become a blur in your mind.

For two weeks, I would pick three places: Venice, Tuscany (in the countryside with a car, visiting the hill towns) and Rome.

Fly into one, fly out of the other; it hardly costs any more than a straight return and it saves you time and back-tracking.

Naples and the Amalfi Coast go very nicely together and can be another trip.

Your French/Swiss trip is certainly a much more relaxed plan. In Italy you would be flinging yourself between distant cities that are mostly sightseeing-intense. In France and Switzerland, you would be enjoying the charm of small towns with a lot history, topped off by spectacular scenery in Switzerland.

For Italy, you might think about whether you might be satisfied with either an all northern trip or an all southern trip -- or an all central trip! A northern trip might include Venice, Verona (with its Roman amphitheatre) and the Italian Lakes. A southern trip would be Rome, Naples and the Amalfi (including Pompeii). A central trip would focus on Rome, Pisa and Tuscany, with a lot of smaller towns to enjoy.

What time in the Fall are you going? The weather changes dramatically for touristing in mid-October. If you are going later than mid-October, I'd recommend Venice, Tuscany, Rome (5, 3, 5.)

Not sure if this will help at all...

we have 15 or so days in Italy in May traveling by train...4 days in Venice, 4 days in San Gimignano (Tuscany), 4 days in Sorrento (Amalfi Coast), and 2ish days in Rome. This is not enough time in Rome but we plan to return later so this was ok for us. Most people will tell you this is too rushed however my boyfriend and I are in college and will be graduating and getting married in the next year so we would like to pack as much in as possible before we have to settle down and save our money for a while.

4 locations is possible in two weeks IF you do open jaw (fly into Venice and fly out of Naples) and if you are a decently fast paced traveler and moving around won't stress you out. If you only have 14 days exactly I would say 3 locations might be better (fly into Venice for 3-4 days, Tuscany (San Gimignano/Siena/and or Florence?) for 4 days, and the rest of the time in Rome which I have heard deserves atleast 4 days.

If you would like to relax more than get everything in, I think choose, as above poster mentioned, north, central, or southern Italy.

Have fun

Hello again,

I would love to see Amalfi Coast, Tuscany and Venice. Is Rome a must?

What are your feelings on Northern Italy Venice etc... and into Switzerland - spending one week in country? You can tell we are still trying to narrow it down - thanks

Karen

"When it comes to likes and dislikes, nobody is ever right"

That's a saying we have in my country, but I have to tell you that, in my opinion, Rome is a must. However, I once read in one of the posts that we should visit the places that we find interesting and not the places we are supposed to visit just because they're a must. I think that you should look up information and pictures about Rome and the internet to see if it seems appealing to you. Visit Rome, just if you find it interesting, not because you are supposed to.

It's funny how nobody ever says: "I'd love to see the Greek Islands. Is Athens a must?" Or: "I'd love to tour the Loire Valley. Is Paris a must?" "I'd love to drive Big Sur and the Pacific Coast Highway. Is San Francisco a must?"

Of course Rome isn't a must. It's your vacation. You earned the money to take it. You should do what you enjoy doing.

Sounds like what you are after is beautiful scenery. That being the case, why not go for the big two: Amalfi and Switzerland. Just make sure you don't have an idealized picture of the Amalfi Coast based on pictures in which no people appear (or trucks, tour buses, tacky tourist stands, etc). They're just outside the frame of those same pictures.

I found Switzerland, in the high mountain villages, to be one of the places most unaffected (at least to the eye) by mass tourism. Yes, there are the ski towns. But when you go out for walks, you simply encounter the Swiss, or foreigners who, like yourself, enjoy walking in these spectacular mountains. It's not really about saying "I went to Murren and got this handbag" -- like some people want to go to Capri and buy shoes.

So: Maybe to go Switzerland first. The rail system is so good you can quickly get up into a breathtaking setting. Hike around for a few days. Come off the mountain and start making your way down to Italy. You can make it from Murren to Lago di Como in a day (a long day, but a rather rewarding one. I've done it.) After a night or two on Lago di Como, you can go to Tuscany. (No, Firenze is not a must either.) Find a pretty place to stay for a night or two. Then head to Naples and the Amalfi.

Try to fly out of Naples if you can.