PeaceOut

You mention affordability, so I think you might not be back to Italy as soon as others might suggest. I suggest you see as much as possible this time, without rushing. You could do three nights in each city: Venice, Florence and Rome. Try to stay longer, if possible. I think with three nights you will get a good taste of the three cities. They are each so unique and make a good contrast from one another.

dutyfree

To give you a clue-Rome is probably the most senior trip with my airline in terms of layovers!

blueshrimp

Yes, yes, yes! Rome is definitely a must see. Definitely.

Florence, Venice, Rome. The three must see cities in Italy. Until you're there you won't understand why.

Hey, if you do make it to Rome, don't forget to visit the catacombs. .

Oh by the way, Pisa-->waste of time. Skip it. Definitely do Rome instead.

And...Venice can be seen in just 1 day. No need to stay there. Trade time in Venice for more time in Rome. It will be a good trade!

willit

"Oh by the way, Pisa-->waste of time. Skip it. Definitely do Rome instead. And...Venice can be seen in just 1 day. No need to stay there. Trade time in Venice for more time in Rome. It will be a good trade!"

I apologise in advance, because my comments are unfair, and it is all about opinion BUT I really believe that the advice of anybody who feels that Venice can be seen in a day should be treated with extreme scepticism.

Pisa compared to Rome - No contest, but a waste of time !!!!!
The Piazza Duomo (Campo dei Miracoli) in Pisa is one of the great architectural sites in Italy. The Duomo is one of the great cathedrals of Europe. Those who feel that they've "Done " Pisa because they spent 5 minutes looking at a crooked tower before jumping back on the tour bus would be better served buying a Viewmaster and staying at home.

ekscrunchy

I think the advice about giving one day in Venice is too silly to comment on.

As for Rome: I don't think there is another city in the world that holds so much for the traveler. For someone like the OP who has a short amount of time, I would say to skip Rome and plan next time to build your trip around that city. It is too overwhelming and all-encompassing to just "do" in a couple of days. I can't even count how many times I have visited and yet, I plan to return again and again.

I suspect that people who dismiss Rome have either rushed in and out in 2-3, or even 4-5, days, or visited in high summer when the weather and heaving crowds of tour groups would diminish the appeal of any large city of major tourist interest.

NYCTS

<i><font color=blue>"Or can you get away with"</font></i>

How can any traveler use these words when asking about a visit to Rome?

ekscrunchy

But what does it mean, "get away with" not seeing Rome?

RufusTFirefly

Anyplace can be "seen" in one day--Rome, Florence, New York City, Paris, London, Kyoto can all be "seen" in one day. It just depends on what you want to leave out of the "seeing." We spent 4-1/2 days in Venice on our first trip there and didn't even have time for the Accademia and Guggenheim museums or any of the smaller lagoon islands; e.g., Murano, Burano, Torcello, not to mention several of the time-worthy palaces and churches other than Basilica San Marco.

JeanneB

If you are CERTAIN you'll go back, then leave Rome for your next trip. But only if you're sure.

If you'll return, plan your next trip around Rome (at least 5 days) and -- this is a personal preference --- go in late autumn. We were there in early November and it was perfect. Fairly cold, but the winter menus were out with lots of boar, truffles, etc. Lines were short and we seldom encountered crowds. Lastly, Rome is the one city where I would say one MUST hire a private guide. There are just sooooo many layers of history there...and then there's the art. And the Vatican. And the architecture!

Oh my, I'm getting the travel bug just writing this!

cesta

We went to Italy 4 years ago and I had this same question. As others have stated, nothing is a must see unless You must see it I did pick Rome and was not a bit sorry. We flew into Rome, took the train, and out of Florence. I saved Venice for later-and I was with a girlfriend, to me Venice is better for me and DH.
I love the history of Rome, the vatican was great but I was a bit disappointed by the Sistine Chapel
Again-it depends on your loves, have a great trip!

blueshrimp

I think Mr. Willit should make no assumptions about the posters he criticizes.

Pisa *IS* a waste of time, if you only have 1 week to visit Italy. If you have unlimited time, by all means, look at its crooked tower, I mean, after all, visiting italian stereotypes is what tourism is all about for those of you that "don't stay at home with the viewmaster".

I am Italian, by the way. Italy IS my home. Viewmaster and tourbus, Mr. Willit, you would make them justice!

willit

But you did not qualify your comments on Pisa - you merely said it was a waste of time. Whether that is so is a matter of opinion. The fact that tourists have have been flocking to Pisa for hundreds of years, and that the site is a UNESCO heritage site belies your opinion that it is "A waste of time".

Being Italian does not make you an expert on all aspects of Italy, in the same way that I am not an expert on most parts of the UK.

RufusTFirefly

Actually, I do like the city of Pisa. I had the opportunity to stay in the city for a few days several years ago and found it to be an interesting university town. Other than the sights around the tower (which are interesting) there aren't any absolute "must-sees," but once you get away from the tower, the city is a nice place to visit. Though with only a week in Italy I also wouldn't include Pisa on my itinerary.