We are taking our first trip to Italy next May. I've been reading a lot of posts here and also other guidebooks, and I'm still a little unsure about how to plan our time there. We will have about 10 days before going on to Munich. I would definitely like to spend several days in Rome and Venice, but can't decide if we should also stop in Florence or stay a night or two in a Tuscan/Umbrian town (Orvieto? Siena?), taking away some days from Rome and Venice. What do you think - should we just spend our time in the two major cities? (By the way, we will be relying on trains as transportation). Any suggestions are welcome!

Florence is full of treasures - a must-do if you have any interest in art. You need more time there than in Venice, IMO. My suggestion:

Rome 4
Venice 2
Florence 3

Maybe a night in Siena on the way or add one to the town of your choice.

I don't think anything in Italy is a "must do" -- and if you must know, most Italians I talk to despair of ever getting to enjoy Florence again for all the tourists stampeding through there, who simply follow guidebooks and otherwise wouldn't be there. Roma and Venezia are filled with treasures, and you'll scarcely have time to see a fraction of those without adding Firenze.

I think spending five days in only Roma and Venezia sounds splendid. You get plenty of time to savor and enjoy the treasures and the piazzas. If you want to something extra, take a day trip from Venezia to Ravenna -- or if you don't want to go that far, go to the island of Torcello in the Venetian lagoon.

If it turns out you don't care for Roma, Orvieto is a one hour train trip away. Firenze is only 90 minutes away.

If you don't like Venezia, go to Verona. Or Treviso.

But don't lock yourself into a tourist stampede.

Have a great time.

By the way, if you're interested in art, the two of the very greatest museums in Italy and all of Europe are in Roma and Venezia: the Villa Borghese and the Accademia respectively. Many people eager to others into the Uffizi as a "must-do" for art lovers have never been to the Accademia in Venezia. It's almost impossible to fit into a two-day trip to Venezia.

I agree with zeppole about the negative impact the tourist hordes have had on my beloved Florence.

Yes - I suggest staying in Siena for two nights with a daytrip to San Gimignano.

Add Burano to your Venice stay.

Yes, Florence is full of treasures - but it's also way too full with tourists - a must-avoid if you have any interest in elbow room or a non harried vacation. You need far less time there than in Venice, IMO. My suggestion:

Rome 4
Venice 4
Florence 2

Maybe a night in Siena on the way or add one to the town of your choice.

zeppole, it is not only Italians who mourn being able to visit Firenze without the stampede. We were first there in 1984 and you could walk right in to everything -- there was a little line for tickets for the Uffizi, but otherwise, no.

But I am afraid it's become like the old joke, "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded."

Fitz,

I would spend the 10 days:

4 Rome
3 Tuscany
3 Venice

I would NOT stay in Florence, but rather the Tuscan countryside which is GORGEOUS in May. Green fields and red poppies. Do a day trip into Firenze if you must.

This way you get a mix of cities and countryside. The best kind of visit to bella Italia!

Buon viaggio

Florence has many must sees but it's expensive, crowded and has the worst lodging for the price. Get reservations at the Academia and Uffizi for one of your days. See the Duomos and Medici palaces day two.

Florence 2

Rome could take a long time, for this trip cram it into three and plan to return.

Rome 3

Venice is magic. Use one day to see the other Islands by Vaporetto and one day to see Venice sights. Take your last Vaporetto trip down the grand canal at night. Be sure to visit the Duomo San Marco when the interior is lit, amazing!
Explore at night by just wandering around the town. Venice is at it's best at night when it's quiet and you can hear water lapping against the buildings. Find the best places to eat by getting off the beaten path and following the local crowds.

Venice 2

Orvieto is convenient from Rome. It sits on cliffs, has tunnels dating back to the Etruscans as well as a major Cathedral built for a miracle.

Orvieto 1

Sienna is also a great walking town (small city) good for a stop if not a full day. You could spend more time here but opt instead for Verona.

Verona is one of our favorites. It has a great medieval center and one of the largest Roman ampitheaters which still hosts operas. It's on your way from Venice toward Munich, on the road to Brenner Pass.

Verona 1

Hope that helps some.

Do people really think there is something deficient about spending five days in Roma and five days in Venezia, with the opportunity for spontaneous excursions if one gets in the mood?

I really don't see the point of locking oneself into a hotel reservation to go to another tourist clogged destination when there is so much that is lovely a stone's throw from Roma or Venezia by train or bus or boat, and you could simply pick a nice day to do it when you wake up and see what the weather is.

I think two days in Venezia is frustrating foreplay!

Sorry if you're children are reading this.

Thank you all for your input. I was told by a friend of mine to stay away from Florence, for the reasons many of you mentioned. I had originally thought to spend our time only in Rome and Venice, but I do like the idea of staying somewhere in Tuscany and going to Florence as a day trip...hmm, so much to consider!

More ideas/opinions are welcome!