Rome vs. Venice
Jul 25th, 2006, 10:52 PM
#7
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
My vote goes to Rome. My wife and I went there last year and it is a great city. I have posted a trip report with some pictures and links on my homepage http://gardkarlsen.com/rome_italy.htm
Maybe you can find some useful info there.
We also went to Venice a couple of years back and it is a nice city to but I feel Rome has more to offer. Here is my trip report from Venice by the way: http://gardkarlsen.com/italy_venice.htm
Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures
My vote goes to Rome. My wife and I went there last year and it is a great city. I have posted a trip report with some pictures and links on my homepage http://gardkarlsen.com/rome_italy.htm
Maybe you can find some useful info there.We also went to Venice a couple of years back and it is a nice city to but I feel Rome has more to offer. Here is my trip report from Venice by the way: http://gardkarlsen.com/italy_venice.htm
Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures
Jul 26th, 2006, 12:00 AM
#8
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adhering strictly to your premise (though I do not think it gives you adequate time in either city), definitely two days in Rome, and one in Venice. Venice is a unique, magical little gem, and you could spend 24 hours there and a get the flavor it. It is relatively small and manageable. Depending on you, one day might be enough for you (two days was enough for me). Two days in Rome, however, will just let you scratch the surface, but you can figure out a good concentrated itinerary to see a few highlights.
Jul 26th, 2006, 06:39 AM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't bother with one day in either city--barely enough time to get oriented let alone actually see or experience much. I'd consider it a waste of time and money.
But I do understand that many people get bored very easily and have to be on the move all the time (my father was this type of traveler--drove my mother, sister, and me crazy). If that's the case, then do one day Rome, one day Florence or Sienna, and one day Venice.
But I'd go for 3 days in Venice. Venice has a lot more to see than many people realize--it's not just the Grand Canal and the sights around P. San Marco.
Second choice for me would be 3 days in Rome--though Rome has so much art, architecture, history, shopping, etc., etc., that 3 days would be a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't be heartbroken if forced to take 3 days in Rome over 3 days in Venice!
But I do understand that many people get bored very easily and have to be on the move all the time (my father was this type of traveler--drove my mother, sister, and me crazy). If that's the case, then do one day Rome, one day Florence or Sienna, and one day Venice.
But I'd go for 3 days in Venice. Venice has a lot more to see than many people realize--it's not just the Grand Canal and the sights around P. San Marco.
Second choice for me would be 3 days in Rome--though Rome has so much art, architecture, history, shopping, etc., etc., that 3 days would be a drop in the bucket. I wouldn't be heartbroken if forced to take 3 days in Rome over 3 days in Venice!
Jul 26th, 2006, 08:03 AM
#13
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think you'll never get back to Italy? Is that why you're trying to see both? If so, I'd spend 2 days in Rome and one in Venice. If you think you'll get back, choose whichever is most convenient within your overall plans and skip the other this time.
One of my friends, age 47, had never been to Europe. His daughter spent a semester at Oxford and at Thanksgiving, the family went to see her. In 10 days they visited: London, Oxford, Venice, Milan, Zermatt and Paris. It sounded like insanity to me, but they had a good time.
One of my friends, age 47, had never been to Europe. His daughter spent a semester at Oxford and at Thanksgiving, the family went to see her. In 10 days they visited: London, Oxford, Venice, Milan, Zermatt and Paris. It sounded like insanity to me, but they had a good time.
Jul 26th, 2006, 08:12 AM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrive to Rome, run around until noon, take train to Venice and run around there until exausted...go to bed on overnight train. You will wake up on a second day in Milan or even Paris...this way you will have 2 days saved to see France and you might get to visit Spain on a third half-a-day.
Sorry...I couldn't resist. Nevermind me.
I am laughing so loud I can't stop.
Sorry...I couldn't resist. Nevermind me.
I am laughing so loud I can't stop.
Jul 26th, 2006, 09:01 AM
#17
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mnkatie,
I think perhaps your post is confusing. Please share your whole itinerary. How many nights will you stay in Italy? Are you travelling from the US?
Three days in Venice and five days in Rome is a bare bones minimum, IMO. Four (or 5) days in Venice and seven days in Rome is more reasonable.
I think perhaps your post is confusing. Please share your whole itinerary. How many nights will you stay in Italy? Are you travelling from the US?
Three days in Venice and five days in Rome is a bare bones minimum, IMO. Four (or 5) days in Venice and seven days in Rome is more reasonable.
Jul 26th, 2006, 09:26 AM
#18
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I don't know anyone who would pack Liz Claiborne pumps - in particular as their "walking" shoe. I do know someone who would definitely pack her Prada pumps - but then, she would have a private car and driver.
