My husband and I are traveling to the French Riviera next summer and would like to take a few days to see some of Italy. We will be flying into Nice, then going west to St. Tropez, then back east to Monte Carlo. That part of the trip is set in stone, what we need help deciding on is whether we should go to Venice or to Rome. We will have 3 days for this part of the trip. I know there is so much to see in Rome that this might not be enough time to see everything. <BR><BR>I'd like suggestions from those of you who have spent time in both Rome and Venice to tell me what you liked about each city. Thanks.

My first question would be, &quot;Where will you be leaving from after you see Venice or Rome?&quot; If you need to get back to Nice, where you arrived, it might be a bit easier (but not a lot) to visit Venice. <BR><BR>My next question is, &quot;How are you traveling?&quot; Although this doesn't make a whole lot of difference, using a rental car versus a train could work for or against you, depending on the train connections. Also, a rental car is not usable in Venice, so if you drive there you will have to park it for you visit.<BR><BR>But in answer to your question, I would say to visit Venice (especially if you can go there during the week, which is less busy than weekendsJ). My reasons are as follows:<BR>-Venice is more compact. In a short time like you have, you will be able to experience much more of Venice than you could of Rome.<BR>-Speaking generally, it is usually easier to travel east across northern Italy to Venice than to travel down to Rome. That applies to train and auto travel.<BR>-Venice is so unique that it's worth seeing because you might not get another chance.<BR>-Since it is much easier to fly into Rome on some future trip than to fly into Venice, you might save Rome for another day.<BR><BR>But please be advised---three days will not be enough to get more than a flavor of Rome, so if you go in the future, allow a little more time. Your three days in Venice also won't nearly cover everything you could do or see, but at least the size of Venice gives you a better shot.

I'm prejudiced because I LOVE Venice even more than I love Rome, but honestly, given your logistics and the amount of time you have, you can do some justice to Venice in 3 days while in Rome you will get just a taste.<BR>Have you dreamed of seeing one vs the other?<BR><BR>However, another issue to keep in mind:<BR>Venice is said to far from its best in the summer. It is inundated by tourists, many of them daytrippers from tours or cruise ships. It does get better in the evenings when the daytrippers leave, but still, this might affect your decision making. While Rome can be very crowded as well, it is so much larger that I can't imagine the same claustrophobic feeling as on Venice's narrow alleys and streets.<BR><BR>To keep your travel time within reason, would you consider another area of Italy, such as the Lakes, or Cinque Terre? Those are close to the French Riviera.

With only three days, I would choose Venice.

Wayne:<BR><BR>Despite the fact that Venice is in northern Intaly and Rome is further south, in order to get to Nice from Venice you would have to change a good number of trains. In first place, you will have to reach Genova, an there are just a couple of trains from Venice to Genova every day. Otherways you would be forced to stop in Milano and change train in Milano in order to get a train to Genova, than you would be probably forced to change train once again in Genova, because trains from Milano to Nice are even fewer that I know of. On the other hand, From Rome to Genova there are a good number of Eurostar trains wich usually make connections with the french trains to Nice Yet, with only three days, I wonder why not staying in Liguria. Grenova is an interesting city and on the coast between Genova and the french border there are a few interesting villages where to stop, and more (and more interesting too) villages worth visiting can be found on the mountains right behind the coast.

To answer Wayne's questions...<BR><BR>Due to the limited amount of time we have, we are planning on buying a multi-city airline ticket - fly from Orlando to Nice, then out of either Rome or Venice back to Orlando.<BR><BR>We were planning on riding trains, but I haven't researched the train line yet. <BR><BR>I'm leaning more and more towards Venice after reading the posts so far and the gorgeous pictures I've seen. Thanks for the replies.

I'll add one more vote for Venice. And there is no transfer necessary to get from Nice to Milan. You could even argue that aone night stopover could be worthwhile. Remember, lodging in Venice is very expensive - - compared, for example to Bergamo, or Sirmione, just to name two possibilities.If you're staying Wed night and Thu night in Venice, then it's (a little) better use of your travel budget to arrive Wed morning, than Tues night.<BR><BR>And by the way, I recommend the use of a car for the first part of your trip in St. Tropez and Monte Carlo. Though, as an alternative, I think there is an actual cruise/&quot;shuttle&quot; service by sea from Nice airport to St. Tropez. I can't recall the details.<BR><BR>The following thread was incoplete in answering this question:<BR><BR>http://www.fodors.com/forums/pgMessages.jsp?fid=2&amp;tid=1378267<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

Rex:<BR><BR>it is true, there a couple of trains that riun from Nice to Milano, but do they happen to fit the timetable of FLGirl? I mean she already has but three days to visit Italy, with only a couple trains from Nice to Milano (and another train from Milan to Venice, but that ones run every hour and are not a problem) she should consider the need to keep travelling as smooth as possibile, and being forced to wait for several hours the right train, reaching MIlano early in the morning and getting to Venice from there might no be the best way of optimizing time, che might end up seeing more Trenitalia coaches than Venice. I would stick to either Liguria or Rome: the first is far closer, the latter allows frequent trains.<BR>And... Venice is a dump! ^_^

One more vote for Venice. It is magical and not to be missed.

Well! not to make this a referendum on Alice and her opinions and information, but I'd sure like to see a show of hands on this one!<BR><BR>Venice: dump or magical?<BR><BR>I'll start the bidding at three no-trump for MAGICAL!<BR>

My vote is also for Venice, as Elaine says, 3 days in Rome barely scratches the surface. 3 days in Venice is doable. It will be crowded, but so will ROme. I would also think it may be a little cooler in Venice, Rome may be very hot.

to the top, for Bill's referendum<BR>

venice is magical.

You should definately drive from Nice to Monte Carlo...along the cost road. It is very scenic. Then if you want to return you can take the autostrada back to nice to save time. /venice is fun...there are other closer cities/towns...it is quite a drive from nice to venice.

Having just returned from a trip that included Rome and Venice...I'd say Venice. If you have three days you can venture into some of quieter parts of Venice(if such a place exists in the summer). Venice will be more in keeping with the other places you plan to visit. Also..having done planes, trains, vaporetti in Italy..here's my best advice pack light. Hauling anything other than those carry on 22 inch suitcases is a big drag and will be done by you and you alone.