ndf321

We will be in Italy for six nights at the end of March. Should we just do Rome and Florence, and delay Venice until we eventually get to do a Bavaria and Switzerland trip? I have heard there is a fabulous scenic train from Munich to Venice.

I really would hate to rush things too, too much, even though I don't know whe we'll get to Europe again.

rex

Only you can really decide this question - - is six days/nights the full extent of the trip? or are you combining this with additional time in another part of Europe? How much have you traveled in Europe before? and what about Italy appeals to you to want to go there in the first place?

Whatever your decision, let me advise against TOO FEW days/nights in Rome. Rome is very intense, and twice I have seen travelers not like it when the were there too short a time. Count on a minimum of three days/nights to get used to its rhythms, its sounds, its scooters and the density of how uch there is to take in. If possible, I might recommend your two days/nights in Florence first - - though wherever you go (assuming you are crossing an ocean to get to Italy), your first 24 hours are a mixed blessing - - the combination of first-arrival excitement and fatigue/sleep deprivation.

Best wishes,

Rex

mamc

It is hard to advise someone else on what is best but, after 6 trips to Italy, Venice is the place I would start, not the place I would skip. It is impossible to do Florence, Venice and Rome in 6 days but you might consider Florence and Venice which are more manageable than Rome. Happy planning.

BoulderCO

I vote for 4 nights Rome and 2 nights Florence but then I am not a huge Venice fan. I definitely agree you shouldn't try to do all three.

Patrick

To add further confusion, if I were eliminating one of the "big three" in Italy, Florence would be the first to go. If you are totally into art and couldn't stand the thought of missing Florence's museums, then stick with that. But as a city to see and experience otherwise, there is no comparison between Venice and Florence. Venice is simply unique and magical. I'd be more tempted to do Rome and Venice and skip Florence in such a limited time. Is that your total trip? If so, can you fly into Rome and out of Venice?

Statia

Personally, I would do three nights Florence and then three nights Venice. Or, even four nights Florence and two nights Venice.

Venice is so magical and unique that I couldn't imagine being that close and skipping it.

ndf321

I have been researching this until I am blue in the face, and all the Fodorites have been very helpful.

It comes to this: we can't skip Florence, because we have friends in Pisa (U.S. Air Force) who we really want to see, albeit briefly. In addition, I am very interested in seeing Florence's art.

Also, we are flying in and out of Rome, so I can't see traveling through/past Rome and not seeing it.

I am leaning toward skipping Venice until we can give it the time it deserves, but I have seen so many posts that say Venice is not-to-miss, so I am doubting my instincts.

I really appreciate everyone advice, though. Maybe I need to make a list of pros and cons. Either way, I am sure I will have an awesome trip.

JandaO

Please do not skip Venice it just may be the highlight of your trip.

cmt

If I were choosing two of those three, I'd choose Florence and Venice and omit Rome.

ira

Hi nd,

For this trip, skip Venice.

For your next trip tryfling into Munich training to Venice, then training to Vienna. That way you get to see the Alps twice.

It is particularly beautiful in the Spring when the snow is melting and the creeks are rushing.

JanetG

Thats what Id do is skip Venice altogether. Many reasons too, its old, and there are newer places to see for more fun. It stays wet all the time - thats the problem with all the canals. And you can never get a taxi. How they sleep in all that quite is beyond me. Go for the mainland, by all means.

JandaO

janetg,
I pray you are joking.

glassman

Give Rome the attention it deserves. We were there 5 days and did not see everything. This will give you a reason to return. Venice is magical! I could spend a whole week just in Venice.

HowardR

Knowing all the factors that will determine where you will go, I say, "Skip Venice this time and put it at the top of your list for the next trip."
Yes, Venice is magical and everything else that has been written on this post, but since Florence is a must and you are flying into Rome, then the recommendation above seems the most practical and logical.

ndf321

You are all so helpful!

I really only have 6 full days and nights between our arrival and departure at FCO, so I think we'll skip Venice.

My tendenecy is to overschedule our vacations. I want to think I have learned my lesson, but it is so tempting to try to see everything!

And it will give me more incentive to get back as soon as possible, since Venice is sinking at the rate of 6 feet per day. LOL

Now there might be enough time to let my husband see something he is interested in, too!

RickGib

You will be frustrated trying to squeeze Rome, Florence and Venice into your limited schedule because you consume about a day with each transit leg. Rome and Florence are fantastic and deserve your entire 6 days. Visit the two cities, and do not spend the time packing, changing hotels and riding on the trains.

Since you will be returning, combine Venice into the Germany trip. Venice is magic; is a place like no other; and was our favorite stop on our recent one month Italy trip. P.S. If you can, try to get out into the Tuscan coutryside.

Patrick

Your additional posts show you've been thinking, and you've certainly shown good reasons to NOT go to Venice. Stick with the Rome and Florence itinerary, and while there buy a Venice calendar for 2005 and hang it up. Make sure you go back there then!

ThinGorjus

It would be a grave mistake to do all three cities at once. Your head will be spinning. I couldn't even imagine doing two cities. I have been to Florence three times and still have not seen everything. It took me two days just to reflect on the art in the Uffizi.

JonJon

That Venice is "magical" especially in the San Marco, after the tourists have gone...well it IS. I've been to all three but if I could only do two I'd include Venice unless you are absolutely determined to do all the art stuff in Florence.
Now, allow me to comment on that "train ride" from Munich to Venice..I've done it several times and the real "scenic" parts in my opinion are up in the Dolomites and around the Brenner Pass. Combining the two, Venice and Munich with that ride would be quite nice I think. As an alternative, you could, some day, do that ride between Florence and Munich, too.
Whatever, get up early in the morning, go to San Marco, and feed the pigeons and contemplate all the treasures the Venetians have stolen over all these years and ENJOY them!

e_roz

you can't do those 3 in 6 days and enjoy it.
I'd do 6 days in Rome/Amalfi.
or 6 days in Florence, small hill towns.
or 6 days in Venice/Dolomites/Milan.

So yes, just try Rome/Florence.