Rome or Venice first?
Feb 1st, 2006, 09:59 AM
#2
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on you. Do you like to hit the ground running and relax at the end of your trip? Start in Rome and end in Venice. If you like to start in a more relaxing way to get over jet lag and get accustomed to your new surroundings and then move on to the busier travel mode, start in Venice and end in Rome. Whichever you do, I recommend an open jaw flight into your first city and out of your last.
Feb 1st, 2006, 10:13 AM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done Venice first. I like to start more leisurely to get over the jetlag and then build up my site-seeing stamina for Rome. Some people prefer to unwind at the end of the trip and do Venice last.
Also, last time I went, the flight to Venice was longer (i had to change planes in Milan). I prefer the quicker direct flight home (from Rome).
I don't think you could go wrong either way.
Also, last time I went, the flight to Venice was longer (i had to change planes in Milan). I prefer the quicker direct flight home (from Rome).
I don't think you could go wrong either way.
Feb 1st, 2006, 11:04 AM
#5
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would definetly agree with the posts. I went to Italia 2 summers ago and flew into Rome (3 nights)- train to Florence (1 night)- train to Venice (3 nights) and back to Rome to fly out. Rome was completely overwhelming and I did not enjoy it as much as I would have had I gone the opposite route. Also- I would definetly give Florence more than one night.
Feb 1st, 2006, 11:13 AM
#6
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the other posts. It depends on the type of traveler you are. I like to hit the ground running and slowly mellow out, so we did Rome-Florence-Venice open jaw. By the time we got to Venice we didn't do much except wander around and take in the scenery. I would have been too worn out by the time we got to Rome to have seen half of what I wanted to if we had done the opposite route. If you want to start out slow and build momentum, do Venice-Florence-Rome.
Feb 1st, 2006, 11:16 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a twist of coincidence... I responded to virtually this same question exactly one year ago today... on http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34561058
Author: rex ([email protected])
Date: 02/01/2005, 10:44 pm
It's one of the commonest questions here - - and there are dozens of right answers. Some of the variations may depend on why it is you think you want to go to Italy.
I typically offer a contrarian view - - try to "take in the big three" (Florence, Venice, Rome) - - and in this fairly unconventional (and on the surface, seemingly illogical) order.
You can't fly transatlantic to Florence - - but you can connect via London, Paris and several other cities. You can also get in a decent moderate nap, taking the train from Milan or Rome to arrive in Florence on day 1 (departing from the US on "day 0"
.
Spend days one and two in Florence, then, train onward to Venice the morning of day three. Take the train to Rome on the evening of day four or the morning of day five.
It's more train travel than "necessary", but it "saves" Venice until day four when you are past, for the most part, the fatigue and grumpiness that can accompany a sleep-deprived trans-atlantic flight. And it delays Rome until the end when you are better prepared for the "intensity" of so much to see, so many sights, sounds, people, scooters...
Best wishes,
Rex
Author: rex ([email protected])
Date: 02/01/2005, 10:44 pm
It's one of the commonest questions here - - and there are dozens of right answers. Some of the variations may depend on why it is you think you want to go to Italy.
I typically offer a contrarian view - - try to "take in the big three" (Florence, Venice, Rome) - - and in this fairly unconventional (and on the surface, seemingly illogical) order.
You can't fly transatlantic to Florence - - but you can connect via London, Paris and several other cities. You can also get in a decent moderate nap, taking the train from Milan or Rome to arrive in Florence on day 1 (departing from the US on "day 0"
.Spend days one and two in Florence, then, train onward to Venice the morning of day three. Take the train to Rome on the evening of day four or the morning of day five.
It's more train travel than "necessary", but it "saves" Venice until day four when you are past, for the most part, the fatigue and grumpiness that can accompany a sleep-deprived trans-atlantic flight. And it delays Rome until the end when you are better prepared for the "intensity" of so much to see, so many sights, sounds, people, scooters...
Best wishes,
Rex
Feb 1st, 2006, 11:50 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put me in the camp of bustling Rome first and relaxing Venice last! I disagree with Rex. After a busy, active week or so in Italy, I would not look forward to the intensity of any city! We took the Rome-Florence-Venice route on our first trip and were glad we did. Maybe it's because we're from New York, but we were geared to be off and running in Rome as soon as we landed! Then, when we got to Venice a week or so later, we were delighted to have a wonderfully relaxing time strolling the narrow streets, alleys and canals (well, over the canals!), getting lost in leisurely fashion!
Feb 1st, 2006, 12:09 PM
#9
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the Rome-first camp, too.
Hit the ground running in fast-paced Roma, I say. Then unwind, stroll and lose yourself amidst the 'beauty of decay' in Venice.
More importantly, take a ton of pictures. And give us a juicy trip report when you return!
Hit the ground running in fast-paced Roma, I say. Then unwind, stroll and lose yourself amidst the 'beauty of decay' in Venice.
More importantly, take a ton of pictures. And give us a juicy trip report when you return!
Feb 1st, 2006, 12:21 PM
#10
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was going to all three cities I would arrive in Rome first as Rome, even with jetlag, wakes me up. But that is just me. Venice and/or other areas of the region of Veneto are so relaxing before one flies home.
However, flying home from Rome is easier IMHO as getting to the Rome airport is simplier than getting to the Venice airport, well at least for the flight I always have to take to SFO which is very early in the morning. The flight from Rome to SFO is also very early in the morning also (the airline we use) but again it seems easier to get to the Rome airport).
Both ways have their plus and minuses. In either case I am sure you will have a beautiful time in Italy.
However, flying home from Rome is easier IMHO as getting to the Rome airport is simplier than getting to the Venice airport, well at least for the flight I always have to take to SFO which is very early in the morning. The flight from Rome to SFO is also very early in the morning also (the airline we use) but again it seems easier to get to the Rome airport).
Both ways have their plus and minuses. In either case I am sure you will have a beautiful time in Italy.
Feb 1st, 2006, 12:57 PM
#11
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find Rome relaxing, but I live in NYC. The pace of life is still much slower than at home. Also, I've visited Rome enough times that I'm never trying to fit too many sites in anymore.
I'm making a one-week trip to Rome and Venice in March, and we chose to fly into Venice and out of Rome. Our logic? I think there are better timed return flights out of Rome than Venice. Also, I'm traveling with a Europe novice, so I think it will be nicer for her to recover from the flight and get her feet wet in Venice. Then on to busier, noisier Rome.
I'm making a one-week trip to Rome and Venice in March, and we chose to fly into Venice and out of Rome. Our logic? I think there are better timed return flights out of Rome than Venice. Also, I'm traveling with a Europe novice, so I think it will be nicer for her to recover from the flight and get her feet wet in Venice. Then on to busier, noisier Rome.
Feb 1st, 2006, 03:36 PM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just pointing out that my opinion on this "Florence-first" notion is - - and I freely acknowledge - - a distinctly minority view. It's just my opinion.
So... the fact that you... or anyone else, for that matter... might disagree with me is hardly surprising!
So... the fact that you... or anyone else, for that matter... might disagree with me is hardly surprising!
Feb 1st, 2006, 03:58 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a total newbie to this site, but for what it's worth, I'm doing Venice first, Rome last in May/June, on my first trip to Italy. After doing loads of research on this site, it made the most sense for us since we'll be on our honeymoon and wanting to start out more mellow after days of wedding festivities.
Feb 2nd, 2006, 06:11 AM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woot, I think I've decided to do Rome first and end in Venice...what we are taking - a trip with kids ages 15, 13 and 10 - is probably about as far from a honeymoon as one can get!!!
