Rome or Florence
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not to knock Rome but Florence is beautiful. With a lot to see as well so does Rome. The statue of David is a must see in Florence. In the museum as well as in the park overlooking the city. But I think there is more to do in Rome as far as sights. Although you can take a day trip to Pisa and see the tower also . Well hope you enjoy whatever you chose. But also the crime rate in Rome is very high so be very careful.
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Julie, <BR>This is a difficult question and one I think YOU should answer but let me give you something to think about. I agree with John, Florence is beautiful and for an Italy-seasoned traveler it would be the preferred choice. For a first-timer, however, I think Rome will leave you more satisfied. That is, satisfied that you've seen the Pantheon, the Coliseum, the Sistine Chapel, St. Peters Cathedral, the Spanish Steps, the Trevi Fountain, the Roman Forum... I don't know what you're interested in (history, art, shopping, food, etc.) but, for the "average" traveler, I think you can easily do Rome in 2 days, cross a number of "must sees" off your list, and look forward to exploring Tuscany on future trips. If you're not average and want to go beyond the "typical," Florence is one of the best places to do it.
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Since both Rome and Florence are equally great destinations, I would make convenience the number one consideration. And, as previous poster has noted, Florence is closer to Venice, and thus it makes for a more "compatible" destination. Save Rome for your next trip!
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Both are great; I prefer Rome over Florence, but since you only have 2 days to spend (which is not even close to enough for Rome) and you'll also be in Venice (which is closer to Florence than Rome is), I strongly recommend you choose Florence over Rome on this trip. Save Rome for another time. And yes, while in Florence, don't miss "David."
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree with other posts--this is a hard choice, but given your limited time and location (and not knowing what your interests are) I'd say go to Florence. Unless the biggies in Rome (St. Peters, Colosseum, Sistine Chapel, etc.) are "musts" for this particular trip, I'd pick Florence. Neither city will adequately be covered in two days, but Rome in two days is a bit overwhelming to say the least. I'd also consider what other cities are on the rest of your itinerary. If you're heavy on smaller Venice/Florence places, then maybe Rome would be a good option. All things being equal go to Florence.
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
For a short two-day excursion from Venice I agree with the people who suggested Florence, since it's easier to get to and not as large and hectic as Rome. And it is beautiful. <BR> <BR>However, with that said, it does all go back to what YOU want. For me, despite the facts I listed above, it is simple. I would choose Rome in a second! I love how crazy and beautiful and alive it is...it makes me feel crazy and beautiful and alive! Just walking down the street in Rome makes my soul sing. <BR> <BR>So with that last bit said, I'd like to leave this message for the second poster who said for an "Italy-seasoned traveler" Florence would be "the preferred choice": Can you please revise that to every Italian traveler on earth's "preferred choice" except for mine? Thank you!
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
My wife & I preferred Florence, we stayed near the Duomo & found we could walk to everything we wanted to see. The leather market is great & bargaining fun. Also, if you're driving or taking the train, it's a straight shot back to the Rome airport. We also enjoyed Rome, but due to the larger size (& short time you have) I would recommend doing more planning up front on getting to the places you want to see at hours they are open. We used the subway & busses w/no problem but watch your pockets near subway/bus doors: I had a 7year old shaking hands with me in my pocket trying (unsuccessfully) for my $.