Rome and Florence or Rpme and Venice
 

Hi all. Only have 10 days to see Italy this summer and have been reading that it is better to narrow down 2 cities instead of 3. Which would you choose and why? Would also like to take a side trip if possible. Thanks for your help. We are actually still deciding between California and Italy; totally different, I know.

I would do Rome and Venice....unless you're interested in art and art history. Then, it would be Rome and Florence. Two cities will keep you busy...forget any side trips. Where do you live? We are New Yorkers and one year did both CA and Italy (Piedmont).. both were equally enjoyable.

We live on Long Island. You wouldn't recommend a side trip from Venice? Where did you stay in Rome and Venice

I think you can do all 3 with 10 days. Fly into Venice (4 days), train to Florence (2 days), train to Rome (4 days). Fly home from Rome.

Rome & Venice. Simplistically put, Florence, though very different from Rome, is still more like Rome than is Venice.

BTW, CA &amp; Italy aren't <i>totally</i> different ... as a native Californian who has travelled many times to Italy, I am always struck by the geographic/scenic similarities between the two places!

I'd agree that you can actually do all three. Starting in Rome for 5 nights, training to Florence and arriving there mid morning for the rest of that day, spend one night and most of the next day before going on by train to Venice for 4 nights. Or you could spend two nights in Florence taking one from Venice.
I think it makes more sense to &quot;do&quot; all three rather than cut it to two and do a day side trip somewhere else.

I agree with NeoPatrick. Make Florence your &quot;side trip&quot;. 10 days in Italy is an &quot;hors d'oeuvre&quot; trip, so you may as well see 3 different cities. Make the most of your time by planning ahead. By the way, &quot;Rome Walks&quot; is a great way to see Rome.

dear alcorjd, How do I find out about Rome Walks.

I agree that you can do all three in 10 days. We did 3 nights in Venice, 2 nights in Florence and 4 nights in Rome when we went to Italy last year. I think it was enough time to get a feel for each city, and we're planning on going back to explore other parts of Italy.

Hi

I have only been to Rome and Venice so I can't comment on Florence. But Rome was amazing and my wife and I had a great time when we went there. I have posted this trip report with pictures and links on my homepage http://gardkarlsen.com/rome_italy.htm . I have also posted a similar trip report from Venice on http://gardkarlsen.com/italy_venice.htm . Hope this helps in your planning.

Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures

Florence and Venice are both beautiful, your selection depends on the type of holiday you want to have. Florence is great for art and the architecture whilst in Venice being on the water and getting lost through all the little alleys and streets is truely different and magical. Also take a boat trip to the liitle islands off Venice like Burano (postcard perfect). The seafood risotto is to die for!

Hi S,

I would do it in this order:

4 nights Venice, 5 nights Florence - day trips to Siena and Orvieto.

What suze suggested.

4 nights Venice, 5 nights Rome

((I))

I would agree with the above posters that said you could do all three in 10 days. A couple of years back, my wife and I did Rome, Orvieto, Florence, Venice, and Pisa in 9 full days. Did we see everything? No, but we really enjoyed the trip. (We generally like to do more than many people here would.) Our itinerary was as follows:
Fr - Fly into Rome late evening
Sa - Rome (Ancient)
Su - Rome (Ostia Antica in morning, misc)
Mo - Rome (Vatican)
Tu - Morning train to Orvieto
We - Morning train to Florence
Th - Florence
Fr - Morning train to Venice
Sa - Venice
Su - Train to Pisa
Mo - Morning flight home
We would have skipped Pisa and added a day in Venice, but our flight home (Ryanair back to Germany) was from there. You could easily skip Orvieto to get an extra day in Florence or stop in Orvieto for the day on the way between Rome and Florence. Now, I do have to admit, that we're planning on return this fall and spending a whole week in Rome and three days in Venice.

Whatever you decide, enjoy your trip,
Paul

I think 10 days is enough to get a taste of all three without too much hassle. I would spend the majority of time in Rome, then Venice, and a day or two in Florence, unless the artworks of Florence is a special interest. It's Italy, you can't go wrong.

Hi singer, this is such a personal question and you will get many different replies. I think the best thing to ask is what your interests are, and how fast you like to travel.

Rome is fabulous, Rome is big, do you prefer a larger city? Florence &amp; Venice are very walkable small cities.

If I had ten days I would only do two areas, but that is just my DH and I, I have been to R, F, and V. Florence &amp; Venice were my favs of the three because I prefer smaller areas.

Do what you are doing, research. That way you will discover what is best for you. Look at books, continue to read posts. As rdnwdln said, it is Italy, you are going to have a wonderful time!

Enjoy!

Dear Traveling Mum, Did you mean the island of Murano? I saw that on the food network a couple of days ago.

singer8 ~ Murano, Burano and Torcello are three lagoon islands off Venice.

I'd try to do all three. If you don't have a lot of interest in touring many of the churches in Rome, you can cut days off of Rome. If you don't have much interest in art, two days in Florence will be enough. Or maybe you're like me and love it all.

Try 4 days in Rome, 3 in Florence, 3 in Venice.

One thing I think is interesting is that some suggest limiting to two cities -- let's say Rome and Venice. They they suggest various daytrips -- let's say Padua or Orvieto. Now I'll be the first to agree those are nice day trips, but why would anybody totally ignore Florence (which I don't really care for that much anyway) in favor of spending time in Orvieto or Padua on a FIRST TIME Italian trip? It seems to me it makes more sense to do the three main cities rather that just two of them and then several &quot;less important&quot; ones.

Because, Neo, it depends upon what your travel style is. Orvieto could be a lovely respite from the intensity of two bigger, more emotionally- &amp; intellectually-demanding cities. And, without knowing the interests/personalities of the op, who's to say which places are most &quot;important&quot;?!

&quot;without knowing the interests/personalities of the op, who's to say which places are most &quot;important&quot;?&quot;

Duh? Maybe by reading the poster's original title where she already clearly stated the three most important ones? My point is that these are the three foremost in their minds, why tell them to skip one of those because it's &quot;too much&quot; and then suggest substituting a couple of others instead?

Hi all. I think we would like to get a taste of all three cities. Perhaps 4 nights in Rome, 3 nights in Florence, and 3 nights in Venice. Maybe a side trip to Sienna for a few hours for a wine/ cooking tour? You guys have been great.

Neo,
Why the hostility?
My post was not meant to be offensive to you, &amp; I do apologize if you interpreted it as such. In fact, I am one of those people who usually says &quot;Go for it -- visit 3 cities in 3 minutes if you want!&quot;

OK, since you've decided on the big 3, look into flying into Venice and out of Rome. With only 10 days you want to eliminate backtracking. Venice makes a great relaxing introduction to Italy while shedding jet lag. If you reversed the open jaws and flew into Rome and out of Venice, you have to leave Venice so early, that you're losing vacation time.

Singer 8, Traveling Mum DOES mean &quot;Burano&quot;--it is the lace island and is just wonderful. In the village square last fall an older gentleman with a great voice was singing opera and other locals were joining in..the little houses are painted different colors ..absolutely charming. Murano is fun too...restaurants along the canals are not quite as pricey as in Venice.

And you asked about Rome Walks. Check their website at www.romewalks.com. This last time because of scheduling we took a &quot;private&quot; walking tour of the Forum/Col area--4 of us. A little pricey but worth it. Friends have taken the group walks (less expensive) and loved them.

Once you've been to Italy, you'll go back! At least that's been true for me. So I think it's worthwhile to visit Rome, Florence and Venice together, so you can decide which one(s) to explore in detail. I'm an art history fan, so Florence is my personal best. But all three are interesting and very different.

Has anyone used american express rewards for hotels in Italy? If so can you recommend any? Thanks so much for all your help. Singer

Ditto Joe18, precisely.

You will have PLENTY of time for all three cities. When I went for 9 days I did 3 days each, but Florence and Venice have nowhere near as many things to do as Rome. You can easily do a day trip from each, though. Recommend Verona from Venice, and Siena from Florence. Then use the last 4 for Rome.

Venice is much more picturesque than Florence. Plus, you can escape the heat by going to the beach. Florence, on the other hand, will be sweltering and overrun with American college students. Recommend Venice over Florence if you MUST choose.

Lucie, that wasn't hostility. When I ask someone where Main Street is and I'm standing under the Main Street sign at the time, and they answer &quot;look above your head&quot; -- I say DUH. You asked how we were to know what cities the poster would like when she clearly listed them in her post. So I said DUH. Sorry if that offended you, I assumed you just had missed the obvious.

I'm not quite sure how mocking oneself compares to mocking another person. And even your &quot;apology&quot; has an air of condescension -- but perhaps that's just my overanalytical reading.

We've been acculturated differently, Neo. Different styles, different interpersonal &quot;rules.&quot; Whatever.

Enjoy yourself.

Lucie, trust me, you're making way too much out of this. You asked how we could know which cities the poster wanted to see, when the poster had said which three cities she wanted to see. I said DUH. Is that so offensive? Get over it please. Sorry I didn't know you are that sensitive.

I frankly can take the kidding when someone tells me I've said something that appears obvious. I guess you can't. And that was the point of using myself as a point of reference. Now I know and will try to remember that in the future you cannot be kidded about missing the obvious. I apologize now in advance if I forget that you are one of those who can't take it. Good grief!

In fact if you really think my apology (more an explanation, actually) was condescending, then I really should probably try to refrain from ever commenting to you at all, because I have no idea how I can do that without you taking it personally -- and wrong.

Neo, as articulate and obviously intelligent as you are, you really don't get it. We're clearly on very different wavelengths, and if that means you perceive me as hypersensitive, that's fine. But please cut out the &quot;you've missed the obvious&quot; line: that's beneath you.

As I said, enjoy yourself. I'm sure you do.

Wow. I tried to explain nicely, I tried to be nice. I tried to be rational. You just don't like that, do you?

What is NOT obvious about knowing which three cities a person wanted to see since she even named them right in her title? I'm sorry you think pointing out the obvious is rude. That's the end of my &quot;apology&quot;. I don't care to stoop to your level of being mean, nasty, or vindictive when it is totally uncalled for.
Once again I AM TRULY SORRY I OFFENDED YOU BY POINTING OUT THAT YOU WERE OVERLOOKING THE OBVIOUS. I had no idea it was worth all this! It isn't to me.

Oh, Neo, Neo, Neo! You're right. I'm wrong. Peace be with you.