Venice or Rome
 

Splitting off a topic that came up from a separate thread, I'm trying to figure out whether to go to Rome or Venice as part of our 25th wedding anniversary next September. I have decided I want to visit Tuscany (both my wife and I want to go there) and Lake Como (my wife has had a desire to go there for many years). The issue is which additional city we visit, as part of our two week trip.

My original plan was to have five days in Rome. Neither of us have been there, there is obviously a lots to see and do - and a part of me thinks it's slightly weird to go to Italy and not go to Rome. In short, we both want to visit Rome at some point.

However, several people have made very strong recommendations to go to Venice, even at the expense of Rome, for the romantic aspect.

Both sound wonderful. My current thinking is just in favor of Rome because I assume it's ALSO romantic (in a different way) but, with five days, there would also be much more to see as compared to Venice. But maybe I am mistaken.

In short, I would indeed like a romantic location, obviously, but having beautiful and interesting places to see would also be a big deal for us. Does Venice offer that?

By the way, I assume the food is going to be great on both places :)

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Mark

I went to Venice twice before going to Rome. I've now been twice to Rome too but Venice was the ultimate place for me, perfect according to my esthetic sensibilities and imagination. But it's so subjective that I'm not sure how anyone but you can know which would be the best choice.

As you'll see if you go on YouTube, neither is particularly "romantic" during the day. Venice is chock-full of masses of tourists, as is Rome - a big city with big-city traffic and busy-ness.

To experience these as "romantic" places requires an effort on your part.

In each place you can switch from being a tourist to being a visitor, make an effort to avoid the places where the tourist in you wants to be and find quieter spots. But it takes work and research and willingness to resist the temptation to see one just more world-famous site...

Venice before and after hours is an entirely different story - it can truly feel "romantic" if you stay away from the obvious route everybody takes (the path marked in yellowish/brown from the S. Lucia station via Rialto to San Marco). Get up long before sunrise and walk to San Marco and watch the sun come up - you'll never forget it. That sort of thing takes planning and effort, it's much easier to lie in bed and get out when everybody is already clogging up the place.

Rome can be romantic also, again you need to plan and pick your times and places.

Watching DVDs and videos and reading up will help you prepare.

Venice is not everyone's be-all-end-all. It's not mine. FWIW, I think good food is a little harder to find in Venice than most Italian cities, and I find most Italian cities romantic in their own ways.

How many days and nights will you spend in Italy?

I would land at Malpensa/Milan, train to Lake Como, then
train to Florence. After Florence, pick up a rented car and head to a small Tuscan town. Turn in the car at Orvieto and train to Rome. How many days/nights you spend in each place depends on how long the trip. If you don't have at least 2 weeks, you'll have to drop one destination.

As someone who is an international flight attendant,Rome is probably the most senior trip my fellow flight attendants want for a layover in Europe-!

Rome is a city that has so many variables-classical/historical;Christian;artistic;foodie/wine;etc. I always tell folks that it is like an artichoke that needs to be peeled away as it has so many facets.It is a great city to walk around and just stop for a coffee or a wine and watch the world go by!

Rome is additive to most folks as once you have been, you are already planning your next trip back .Hands down in most people's opinion is that Rome has more bang for your buck!

Venice has become an over run city with too many cruise ships so a lot of its magical has left.I find it more expensive than Rome in terms of food and wine. The alleyways that used to be so fun walking around in are now full of the "cast of thousands" that come in for the day from the cruise ships.If you decide to go to Venice,I would suggest you take the water bus out to Burano and Murano for the afternoon. FYI-Those romantic gondolas are now charging $100 for less than 40 minutes and those Italian leather goods are now made in China (copied from an Italian design and then sent back to Italy where they put the zipper or buckle on it to say it was "made in Italy").Seriously,go to Rome as you got a great advice above on how to do your scheduling.

Of the two, I'd agree that has much more to offer. While I haven't been to Venice in several years, it was overrun and overpriced even back then. (Burano and Murano were lovely, though)

Rome, on the other hand, has it all, as previous posters mentioned. And while the landscape might not be as romantic as Venice, you will have a very rich experience. And...really, you can make anywhere as romantic as you wish. Florence, and/or the hill towns will give you a nice contrast to Rome and Florence, and offer some spectacular sights.

I love both Venice and Rome but, with 5 days, I would definitely choose Rome. There is so much to see and do. If food is a consideration, Rome has, IMO, much better food than Venice. In 8 trips to Italy, we have visited Rome six times and Venice three. Rome probably has more tourists than Venice but it absorbs them a lot better. One is not as aware of the crowds in Rome.

Whichever you choose, you will enjoy.

I don't think it's "weird" at all to go to Italy and not go to Rome. I've been to Italy 5 times and only once did it include Rome. It really depends on what you want to experience during vacation. Do you want an intense city experience? If so, go to Rome. I did it once but have no desire to return. On the other hand I go back to Venice every chance I get. It is a visually stunning experience despite the crowds. IMO, it is the most beautiful city I've ever had the pleasure to visit. The elegant decay simply takes my breath away. If you choose Venice, I think the key is to choose a hotel away from the majority of the masses in a neighborhood like Dorsoduro. Then, visit all the major tourist sites first thing in the morning before the masses arrive. Visit the other islands, take a day trip to amazing Verona. I would agree with a previous poster that great food isn't as easy to find in Venice as in Rome. If you do choose Rome, I'd suggest you make that your first stop. That way you can have big city excitement first then wind down & relax as your trip progresses with your final stop at Lake Como where you can just sit, unwind and absorb the beauty of the lake. BTW, I found Bellagio underwhelming but loved Varenna.

How does anyone define romantic? Is the meaning the same for all lovers? How does one pick a city to provide "romance?" What must a city offer for it to qualify? If beauty is the prerequisite, then almost every city in Italy must make the list. Good luck with choosing.

While my heart beats strongly for both, Rome and Venice are very different experiences. And threads like this turn into a control game. If you do more research, particularly on the cuisines of each region, the differences will certainly influence your decision. Jean was modest when she said "good food is a little harder to find in Venice." But on this board, so many have no clue how to define "good food." I can only imagine how they define romantic.

There are many everyday occurrences in both cities that I would never characterize as romantic. People live in each city and each attracts millions of foreign visitors each year. That's a lot of noise and garbage. September is one of the busiest tourist months of the year. Personally, I don't find large crowds romantic. Ever. I also don't find romance in over-priced tourist traps. Both cities have an abundance of tourist seducements. Both cities offer candlelit hideaways with spectacular views.

Do mosquitos fit into your definition of romantic? How about high humidity? Depending on the weather, both cities can offer annoying surprises in September. Do you find the scent of Deet romantic?

I'm not trying to burst your fantasy bubble, Mark. IMO, you need to do more research and figure out your own definition of "romantic." Only then can you decide which city to visit first. IMO, you can't go wrong with either (unless you hate fish). There's nothing anyone can say here that hasn't already been said a million times.

IMHO either can be as romantic as you make them.

Strolling back to your hotel through piazzas with floodlit fountains after a lovely dinner in an outdoor setting with wonderful architecture - how can you beat that for romantic. And it's Rome.

You can do similar in Venice - but more canals and fewer piazzas and fountains.

It's just really how you prefert o spend your time.

I visited Italy 3 times before I got to Venice - and while I love it I still prefer Rome. (And I don;t think gondolas are romantic - IMHO the 3rd person kills the romance.)

While others mentioned how crowded Rome was, I think Venice tops that. It is a major cruise port and also a big bus tour destination. The core of Venice is unbearable during the day as massive number of people get crammed into an area much much smaller than Rome. When I walk around early in the morning quietness, I see enormous cruise ships after another rolling in by Guidecca like Death Stars descending onto this tiny island city. If your idea of Romantic get away is sleeping in late and be on the same schedule as tour groups, unless you plan to hit areas not frequented these groups,you will be disappointed in Venice.

So much depends on where you stay in each city. On a return visit to Rome after many years away, we stayed on Via Veneto and absolutely hated it. Our next visit and all the others since, we've stayed in or close to the historical center, and fell in love with Rome all over again.

I tend to travel outside the summer season and wander off the beaten path more often than not. So I've never been bothered by the major hoards in Venice described in posts above. Probably for a September trip Rome might, indeed, be the better choice in that respect although it's not difficult to spend the busiest time of the day out of the major tourist areas. There's loads to see other than the, dare I say it, "must sees" (I think I'm going to faint).

If you've never been to Venice, though, I think it would be a shame to miss it entirely. Even if you spend just 1 night on the way to somewhere else, arrive by train when the buses are leaving in the afternoon, have an early walk around the next morning and be on your way midday. It would be worth it just ride on the No. 1 vaporetto on the Grand Canal at night, sit outside at the very front and look up into the lit windows of the palazzi and glimpse a bit of the magic.

Like Dee Dee, I've been to Italy 10 times and haven't made it to Rome yet. Partly because of DH's antipathy towards big cities.

Bottom line: you're choosing between chocolate cake and cherry pie. Neither is wrong.

It's very easy for me to imagine going to Italy and skipping Rome. I did it for years. And it took me three tries to even begin to appreciate Rome (now I love it), but I fell in love with Venice instantly. I do agree about the food, though - pretty darn hard to get a great meal in Venice, though I have had some. And yes, it's hard to define romantic (and of course one makes one's own romance), but there's something about water that softens a place.

I'm one of those, and I think there are some here who've posted above, that are taken with a place and like nothing better than looking forward to going back again & again. It took a friend assuring me that Rome wasn't a big dirty city and is a great place to visit to persuade me to abandon Venice to see for myself. And I do like Rome very much. But now, having been there twice, my inclination will be to go back to Venice to some obscure corner for a longer stay. It's the place in Italy that I think appeals to the imagination, if that's the part of the brain that does the most directing as mine does.

As an outsider I won't ever know a place as a native knows it but there's a point when the edges begin to wear away and I start to feel at home just a bit and I love that process. Many, I'm sure, don't require that particular aspect from their travels and is maybe why I like to spend months instead of weeks away. I hope to have that experience of Venice one of these times and don't care if I have it Rome. But either city is a great destination as long as it's the one that you're most moved to see. I don't believe anything we say should impact that decision very much.

As you can read, we all have our preferences. My suggestion would be to take some time and read about each city. Read about your special interests, whether they be art, history, food, wine, etc. Read about transportation. Read about accommodations.

I'm betting after a week or so, one of these will grab your interest a little more than the other.

Now for my own preference: I just returned to Venice for a couple of reasons (attending the Biennale and it was our arrival and departure airport in Italy). In September, it was so horribly crowded that every vaporetto journey was uncomfortable and tedious. I can say that I've been to Venice several times and I don't know that I'll ever go back.

Rome, I could move there.

Now, be aware that this is JUST my own opinion and preference. It has nothing to do with your trip. You have to find out what attracts you more to one or the other of these cities.

"Now, be aware that this is JUST my own opinion and preference. It has nothing to do with your trip. You have to find out what attracts you more to one or the other of these cities."

Amen.

As I told my daughter, go to Venice. Who knows how long it will be around with the damage those bloody cruise ships are inflicting !! Save Rome for a visit to the South.

Wow - fantastic responses! Thank you so much. One common theme I see is that there is no common definition of "romantic". 100% agree with that. I reserve my right to make my own judgment on that :) That said, it was interesting in the other thread that a number of people referred to Venice with no previous mention of it - "Consider Venice instead of Rome", "Venice is far more romantic", "Venice is a must see", etc, etc. These references grabbed my attention, so I thought I'd ask the question. But, yes, I agree, none of us have the "right" to define what romance means (incidentally, I also don't feel anyone has the "right" to define or judge good food for anyone else, but that's a separate story :)).

I continue to research this. A lot. Actually, without starting a debate (I LOVE giving surprises!) I am really eager to discuss this with the wife! But, for now at least, this is non-negotiable. The joy of the surprise, which is a key characteristic of our marriage (been doing them for 24 years) is not something I can give up now. She can continue to look forward to a couple of days in Vegas for a few more months. But at some point I will obviously share the excitement. I might save some of it though (like the Lake Como visit :)).

Having looked at these comments and carried out further research I think I am going to stick with the original plan of dong Rome -> Tuscany -> Lake Como. It might be debatable but having always wanted to visit Rome (and the wife does too), I truly think it makes sense to factor that in. For two people who have never visited it just seems that with some good research under my belt we are going to have an absolute blast in Rome. I love London (slightly biased). I love Paris (sooo much). And I am pretty sure I will love Rome. It's not really that they are big cities. It's because they just offer so much variety and I believe that I can find the type of "atmosphere" I want.

I must admit that some of the negatives about Venice stand out for me a little (overcrowding, etc). I think my desire to visit Rome might be clouding my judgment here - I know there are negatives with Rome too.

It's also crossed my mind to extend to 20 days.

I saw a picture of the Amalfi coast. I am desperately trying to forget it because my choices are already too great :)

Thanks again, everyone.

Mark

<i><font color=#555555>"I also don't feel anyone has the "right" to define or judge good food for anyone else"</font></i>

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone has the right to define and judge good food for themselves. Tastes vary. Knowledge varies. Many people can't tell the difference between a Spanish olive or an Italian olive. Many people can't tell the difference between frozen fish and freshly caught. And many people can't tell whether their pizza has canned mushrooms on it or fresh slices.

What is a food or wine opinion worth when it comes from a complete stranger? What good is a stranger's definition of romantic?

<i><font color=#555555>""Venice is far more romantic""</font></i>

Well, as StCirq said, there's something about the softness of water. A boat ride can make you feel light on your feet. When you step off a rocking boat, your body still wants to sway for a bit, almost like a dance or a moment of happy intoxication. Then there's the light, and the reflection of light on the water can create the magic of twinkle. If romance is defined by how one sets a stage, Venice has her art direction talent down. Where else can you find the gondolier's life?

<i><font color=#555555>""Venice is a must see""</font></i>

Venice is unlike any other city I've ever visited, and after countless visits in 30+ years (I was there just a few weeks ago), I'm still completely bewitched and bedazzled. There's a reason why she's also known as <i>La Serenissima</i>.

<i><font color=#555555>"I think I am going to stick with the original plan of dong Rome -> Tuscany -> Lake Como."</font></i>

The month of September can be magical in each. If romance is defined by color and wine selection, each destination knows how to seduce.

Don't obsess. Your plan is fine. And I say that as one who has visited Venice more than once and loves it.

You might want to start in Lake Como and then work your way down as most flights that leave from VCE back to the US leave very early in the morning versus Rome or Florence.

I like your thinking. Both cities are great, so if you have an interest in seeing Rome, go to Rome. Five nights is the right amount of time there too, to see the major sights. I really like your plan. Fly into Rome and out of Milan. Happy anniversary!

Ha - this is quite funny :) I just finalized my plan. Or so I thought. I was settling on five nights in Rome, four in Tuscany and another five in Lake Como. I came back here to let folks know and to start figuring out hotels (I have some awesome choices) - and then I saw dutyfree's point about the timing of the flights home. Oh :) That IS a bit of a factor, so now I am thinking about reversing the order. That's JUST the sort of snippet that is really easy to miss - unless I call on the experts on this forum! Thank you dutyfree (and to everyone).

So, rethinking the order.

Mark

If Lake Como is your last stop, you will probably find it easiest to fly out of Milan, not Venice, so dutyfree's advice may have little bearing.

Driver service from Lake Como to Milan MXP will make it easy for your departure flight.

I love both Venice and Rome. But If I had to choose Rome would win. Although Venice is a city so unique... Try to see both! Fly into one and out of the other. You will not regret the effort.