Venice, Florence, Rome - Really the Answer?
 

It's Sunday and I'm in a contemplative mood. We're planning a 2006 trip to Italy, so have been paying attention to all the questions on this site from others who are planning to travel there. It seems that almost all the answers say you 'must' visit Rome, Florence and Venice. And so I've been wondering, if someone were to ask about visiting Canada (my country), telling them to visit Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver wouldn't actually give them much of an idea about Canada. Is visiting Rome, Venice and Florence the answer to understanding Italy?

Hi
No, but it's the answer to understanding, or at least becoming acquainted with,
Rome, Florence, and Venice.

Big cities, and highly-touristed cities, very seldom have a lot in common with smaller, out of the way places. I live in New York, the rest of the USA will tell you that New York is nothing like their home town, and I agree.

If you want to understand 'Italy', I assume you have to live there for a while, and in more than one locale because Italy encompasses many mini-cultures.

But wouldn't those visiting Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver have a really great vacation? And couldn't they easily daytrip from one or more of those cities?

I love Vancouver and Toronto; sadly haven't been to Montreal. I suppose I might have a better idea of what Canada is like if I'd been to lots more places there, and hopefully, someday I'll see more of Canada. But for now, I can say that I love Canada based on some visits to its major cities and a few other stops, like the Niagara area.

I wish everyone could see all of Italy, but I wouldn't tell anyone to take a pass on Rome, Florence or Venice.

If they are looking for "the answer to understanding Italy" I might tell them to visit the major Etruscan sites, followed by a tour of Tuscany and a trip into the history of the Renaissance, as well as the various former provincial powers of the area.

Then of course, a lengthy trip to Venice, followed by a tour of the lakes, a good amount of time spent in Milan studying fashion and business, then a tour of the south, etc etc etc...

You get it. Understanding Italy is one thing; dipping in by hitting the big three is another.

No one has the answer to understanding France after a visit to Paris, but people sure have fun there.

Ditto San Francisco and New York.

I didn't mean to be argumentative, but I got carried away making my case. I suppose the bottom line is: what is one traveling to Italy for?

My first trip to Italy was to Liguria. I had a wonderful time, but I still really wanted to see Rome, Florence and Venice.

No - but no two week vacation is going to make you understand any country. it will just scratch the surface.

Certainly, there is more to see in Italy - including the countryside, small towns etc. But - spending two weeks sitting in an olive grove won;t make you understand Italy either - it just takes much more time to do that.

I don't think it is humanly possible to know everything about any country including the one you live in.

There are many places in the US I have never been to.

I was just posting on the US Board in response to a Fodorite who is coming to SF and asked for suggestions. After I posted I thought of so many more places they could enjoy, but it is not possible to go everywhere.

I have had so many trips to Italy have been to the big cities, the smaller towns, the villages etc. etc. I have even sat in an olive grove under a full moon and drank Berlucci.

But do I know all of Italy. Of course not. For one thing I have never been to Sicily. Never been to Ischia.

I have been to very small villages which probably most travellers have never heard of.

But I have never been to Siena. That one I am still trying to figure out, LOL.

I think, IMHO, the best way to get a chance to understanding Italy is to not rush. Venice, Florence and Rome in 2 weeks to me is too much for example.

A day trip to Capri IMHO is a waste of time.

I would decide what section I wanted to get to know; the north, the central, the south or the west coast or the east coast or whatever.

Italy like the US has so many different regions, all with different feelings, food, lifestyles etc.

I know the average traveller thinks that "I have to see it all" as this is my one and only trip to Italy.

I have noticed that once one travels to Italy they do somehow manage to return time and time again.

So rickmay to answer your question, no I do not think that seeing the 3 main cities (but there are others of course like Milan for example) give one the answer to understand italy.

Slowing down and taking one area at a time IMHO will certainly help one understand the part of Italy they have visited.

BTW, LOL, as many of my friends in Italy have often said "even Italians don't always understand other parts of Italy".

We are going back in May for our 13th trip and still have not seen it all. It was our 8th trip before I ever set foot in Rome--but we spent a week then. I suggest planning 3 trips to Italy in advance and splitting your time between the major art cites and rural locations each time.

In terms of "understanding" Italy, Venice, Rome and Florence are just as good as any other three places. There are part of Italy, and they are what they are. You have to start someplace, so why not places that were very important historically and culturally in the development of what has become Italy in 2005?

Hi rick,

I think I would recommend Quebec City over Montreal, and for people with a limited budget, I would recommend Montreal over Vancouver.

The big three are The Big 3 for a number of reasons.

For a first-time two-week visit to Italy, I wouldn't suggest lounging about on a beach or a lake or a hike in the mountains. One can do that anywhere in the world.

((I))

I think most say you must visit Rome, Florence and Venice because there is more to see and do in a short time than any other 3 destinations in Italy. They are not called the "Big Three" for nothing. If it is your first trip to Italy and you have two weeks, you might spend most of it in Rome, Florence and Venice and then set aside a couple of days to visit the countryside in the Veneto or Tuscany. One trip is not the key to understanding Italy. After 4 trips covering quite a bit of ground I am no where near to understanding Italy. But after 4 trips, I would still recommend the "Big Three" to first time visitors.

"Is visiting Rome, Venice and Florence the answer to understanding Italy?"

Is that really your objective for this 2006 trip? If yes, then my response would be "No."

In two weeks, you will merely skim the surface and come away with just a taste of Italy...but, oh, what a taste!

We didn't get to Venice until our third time in Italy, and we still haven't been to Pisa in two trips to Tuscany. And that is because we all have our priorities and we all know what will make our trip memorable.

For me, a perfect trip is to blend these fabulous cities and their art and history with the charm and serenity of the countryside. But it is different for everyone.

Before you decide on Rome, Venice and Florence, decide what it is that you rally want from this trip.

Your answers have given me much to think about. We can spend three weeks in Italy in spring 2006 and based on advice on this board and slowtrav, as well as guidebooks, etc. will split our time between the three cities, Tuscany, and the Amalfi Coast.

But when I look at the map of Italy I see so many other interesting names that I recognize from plays, books, great movies. And then there are those interesting names that I don't recognize but, for some reason, they intrigue me and I want to find out more about them. And I worry that with our existing itinerary I'll get the stuff that is kind of frozen in time, but maybe not the everyday vibrancy or layered complexity that is any culture.

I suspect I'm expecting way too much from 21 days, myself and Italy.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Rickmav Here are my credentials--Born in Toronto, been to Montreal, never been to Vancouver, just completed 10 day tour of Rome Florence and Venice.
You MUST visit Venice in case you die before you can go back to Italy--that simple. Make it a Tuscany as opposed to a Florence visit (like visiting Magog to do wineries). Stop along the way to Rome (like driving from Toronto to Montreal) to see Umbrian towns like Assissi & Perugia. Rome has the sights that we all know about and you have to see those because everybody expects it. What you will learn is that these people see millions of tourists and treat you like family. I'd go back tomorrow!!

Rick, that is a good start--you will rturn.

Rick, it's a good kind of problem to have. Relax, and have fun planning the trip. As Bob said, you're off to a good start already.

Enjoy!