I'm planning to go on a two week trip to Italy in March. I'll be staying primarily in Venice, Florence and Rome using the train as my mode of transportation. Are there any advantages or disadvantages to flying into Venice as opposed to Rome. Are there any advantages to starting the trip in one city as opposed to the other?

I can't comment on Rome, but we recently did Florence and Venice and really liked ending our trip in Venice. It's a nice, relaxing city to wind down in before returning home.

If we had it to do over, we'd use the same order since we have the most engery during the first part of our travels, thus prefer the more hectic and busy cities then.

I also would start in Rome, and end in Venice. Rome is large, noisy, hectic, and demanding of time and stamina. Venice isn't, and I prefer to end the vacation that way.

Venice also has fewer "must sees" in the sense of important museum or other sightseeing experience. Venice has them of course, but the experience of the city itself is in my opinion more important than any one museum or church.

I have files on those cities; if you'd like to see them, email me at
[email protected]

I did a similar trip - 10 days in Rome, Florence, and Venice (in that order) and I took the train as well. I definitely agree with Statia that Venice is how you should end the trip. There are things to see and do in each city, but mostly in Rome, and it is bigger and requires more energy to get around. Florence is smaller slower paced. Then finally, Venice, which has great things to see and do but not so much that you can't just spend time absorbing the atmosphere.

Each city has many things to offer, but you will feel more pressed to "go see do" in Rome than in Florence and Venice.
I loved all three cities for their different personalities, but I would advise against going the other direction.

I agree with the previous posters. We did a similar trip but started in Venice and finished in Rome. Venice relaxed us and we weren't so prepared for the excitement of Rome. If we did it again, we would do Rome first because it would be most like home and we would have the energy and then end up in Venice. Have a great trip!

In April 2002, we went to Venice, Rome, Siena, and Cinque Terre, in that order. We elected to go to Venice primarily because it was my girlfriend's first trip not only to Italy, but to Europe, and I felt it would be a stunning introduction for her (which it indeed was.)

But another great advantage of beginning in Venice is that, especially that time of year, it was more "laid back" than Rome so it was a nice way of easing into the trip.

That should have been &quot;elected to go to Venice <i>first</i>.&quot;

I'm surprised at all the suggestions to start in Rome. After an International flight I prefer to relax a few days so would personally start in Venice and ramp up!

I'm with elaine on this one. As much as I love Rome and Florence, by the fifth day in each my nose needs surgery from the car and bus pollution. When I arrive in Venice, I can breathe in peace and live life on the water until I leave for home. But, to each his own.

Save the best for last: Venice.

I like to go out with a &quot;bang&quot; so I'm planning to do Rome last only because it fits better into my internary and I can get a DIRECT flight home from Rome where if I fly home from Venice, I would have to change planes in Amsterdam (or another city).

I hear you, Gail. Delta does have that lovely non-stop to JFK. Another added plus for me.

Another vote for Rome first and saving the best for last. After the beauty and serenity of Venice, Rome may be a disappointment because of the traffic, noise, and confusion. Not to mention the people bumping into you!

If you want to unwind the first day or two of your trip you can go to the quieter parts of Rome such as Trastevere. One of my most memorable afternoons in Rome was exploring the small squares near Campo de Fiore and slowly walking down Via Gulia, peering into the beautiful open courtyards and savoring the quiet of that street. We stopped at a small cafe for dessert, coffee, and limoncello and then watched a man re-cobble a side street. It was so relaxing.

adrienne

here is my opinion having twice done rome last....do rome first....the hectic pace makes you feel like you are hardly on vacation...go first and get pumped up and then relax away until you leave. having said that....we are going in oct. and have to fly out of rome again (frequent flier option only available) so we do not even plan on arriving in rome except with enough time to hop on the plane....

We've done both and I agree that from a winding done perspective, it's nice to end in Venice. On our upcoming trip we missed out on a good airfare Rome, Florence, Venice so we're doing the reverse. The best reason I can think of to do Venice first is that because it is such sheer torture to leave this paradise, going on to Florence (instead of home) will help ease the pain.

I've done Venice first, then Florence, then Rome. In fact, I'm going again this year and doing the same. My problem is time. I only have 7 nights. After a long transatlantic flight, the last thing I want to do is waste a day due to jet lag in the most hectic city of all with the most &quot;must-sees&quot; (Rome). Venice, like many of the posters have already stated, has less must sees than Rome. When we arrived in Venice after our long flight, we actually enjoyed the fact that we could recover from our jet lag, enjoy a gondola ride, walk aimlessly around the canals and bridges, and still be able to see all the must sees in Venice. If we had arrived in Rome first, I KNOW we would've been way too tired to walk through a 5 hour Vatican tour or Forum tour, or walk up St. Peter's Dome, etc, etc.

I completely agree that Venice is a great city to wind down in. I just prefer to use it as a &quot;jet lag recovery city.&quot; This way I know I'll get everything I possibly can out of the most &quot;jam packed&quot; city of Rome. But again, my issue is time. If you have a 2 or 3 week trip, with 4 nights in each city, then it doesn't really matter (although I'd still do it the same way). Just my preference.

Good luck!

When I'm exhausted from my overseas flight I prefer to push myself to keep going, and to go on to my farthest or more demanding destination to start the trip. After that first day, everything else seems easier and more relaxed.

Nothing wrong with doing it the opposite way, just differences in philosophy.
I also love Venice so much, that I want to end my trip there to still savor the experience for a few more days after I've gone home.

Hi - I've been to Rome twice and on one trip went to Venice, then took the train back to Rome. The two cities are so entirely different, as the other posters have observed. My interest in Rome is always the history. I've never found it hectic, just incredibly alive. It is crowded and noisy, but if you have a good imagination, I think all that will recede into the background as you conjure up life in the Roman Empire. Venice has a dreamy quality about it, a sense I got from Mann's Death in Venice and other reading about the city/state. That city sparks the imagination in an entirely different manner. For me, it would be difficult to shake myself out of the Venice dream-state and into the Roman Empire and everything it conjures up. Have a good time on your trip - thinking about it has me longing to go!

All this talk about Rome and Venice brought my itch back. Just booked my holiday flight last night. First, Christmas in Rome and then New Year's in Venice. Can't wait.

Btw, Coach class is on sale for all you Delta and Air France fans.

elaine,

What's the key to getting the best fares flying open-jaw into Rome and out of Venice ?