Which one of the two would be ideal for a short 3 day visit for a first time visitor to Europe?

Rome is worthy of 4-5 days, but you could see plenty in 3 days. You could see the Vatican one day (between st. Peters, the museum and cistine chapel, you'd spend the better part of a day there, then spend the rest wandering around). You could spend another day at the Colisseum & Forum area, and don't miss Palatine Hill. A third day could be spent seeing the must-sees of Rome like the Spanish Steps, Trevi Fountain, Piazza Navona, and of course, the Pantheon. The old/central part of Rome is very walkable and close together. Also, it will be warmer there that time of year than Venice because it's farther south and close to the Mediterranean.

Venice is nice, but 3 days would be way too much time I think...Plus it's super expensive. I've seen both and would just have to vote for Rome. Save Venice for another time.

If you've never been, you could buy Rick Steves Rome 2006 or Italy 2006 book and see a little of both cities to decide for yourself. He has great travel tips and recommendations especially geared for the first-timer to Europe. You can also get some more information at ricksteves.com in addition to Fodors.

Happy travels,
Jules

I agree with Jules 100%.

I'd say Rome for one big reason: Late October can mean flooding in Venice!

I disagree.

I love them both, I'd choose Venice.

#1, I love Venice more. And end of October is beautiful there. Acqua alta is unpredictable, like rain, and is only bad in some parts of the city. I often go to Venice at this time of year, and I don't see it as a reason to avoid such an amazing city. Risk it!
As for 3 days being too much time for Venice, I just don't get that. The people on slowtrav.com often discuss spending MONTHS in Venice, much more so than Rome.

#2, if you spend 3 days in Rome, spend one in a tourist cattle chute at the Vatican, the next fighting every pickpocket in Rome just to get to the cattle chute at the Colosseum, then spend another day racing through every church from the Tiber to the Quirnale, dodging the insane traffic, you'll have, in my opinion, an unfair and unfavorable view of Italy. Rome is kind of intense, particularly for a beginner.

So I say go to Venice. Just wander, let it wash over you. Pick a few sights, take a sunset ride on a vaporetto (skip the gondola) down the lengh of the
Grand Canal, have the gianduiotto at Gelateria Nico on the Zattere, admire the beautiful paper, stand on the Accademia Bridge just for the view of the Lagoon, have the pumpkin flan at La Zucca, poke your head into a few churches, just get out, get lost and explore. If you get bored (ha!), take the boat to the many other islands. You'll have a much more pleasant time, particularly if this is your introduction to Europe.

Save Rome for when you can dilute its rather intense nature with some more relaxed down time, and you're a little more experienced.

But whatever you do, GO! Don't let anything stop you from traveling!

I agree with Bluehour, and it's not just because I enjoy Venice more than Rome.
It's because in 3 days you can get a good combination of sightseeing and even some leisure time in Venice, whereas three days in Rome would be a frantic whirlwind in a large hectic city.

Well Visiting Europe, I vote for Venice also. Although I love Rome I too think that you will feel rushed, frustrated and tired trying to see beautiful Rome in 3 days. And you sure won't have much in the way of "down time", sitting in a cafe, perhaps even an outdoor cafe in a fun and beautiul piazza.

Venice, there is no other city like Venice, and three days IMO would be so much more relaxing for you. You could fill every moment with sightseeing if you wanted to but I would imagine you will find time to just relax at times and take in the beauty of Venice. You will have time to wander through the residential non or at least less touristy neighborhoods.

If you are one that enjoys getting up early Piazza San Marco is so beautiful early in the morning before the hoards of tourist show up. And Venice at night is magical.

Best wishes for a wonderful three days whatever your decision is. Have fun!

LoveItaly, you do have a knack for making a city sound absolutely lovely.

To add to my previous post, I do think the OP has to take into consideration his/her tastes for big cities vs. a slower pace, their need to see something truly unique like Venice, or get a feel for one of Europe's major cities.

I do have to say that the "cattle chute" comments of Bluehour is an interesting and perhaps a flawed one. Nowhere did I feel like more of a tourist than Venice, where the locals are outnumbered by outsiders at least 2-to-1.

Rome can be taken at a slow or fast pace. It takes some adjusting just like going to New York City when you're from a smaller town, but it certainly has its merits. I did it in 4 days and would have had a hard time doing it in 3, but we saw a lot more than what I listed, and still had an afternoon to just "wander".

VisitingEurope, do take your own likes/dislikes into consideration. If you hate a fast-paced big city, do go to Venice. Or Florence. But whatever you do, GO. You won't regret it, especially if you wear a moneybelt and use it.

Happy Travels.

Jules

Three days are more than enough in any city if you don't know much about that city. We spent 4-1/2 days on our first trip to Venice and didn't have time to see such sights as the Accademia and Guggenheim museums, any of the the smaller lagoon islands (e.g., Murano, Torcello, Burano), and some of the best known churches with their wonderful works of art.

Actually--neither is ideal for 3 days--you really need more time in both. But you can see a lot in either one in 3 days--you just have to prioritize the sights to be sure you see the ones that matter to you the most.

Well, as you can see, opinions are divided. Venice and Rome are such different experiences, I think you have to make this call yourself based on what you like to see and do. For what it's worth, I think the food is much better and prices for everything lower in Rome.

A comment about flooding in Venice. There can be flooding during any month of the year. Go to www.comune.venezia.it for lots of info about visiting Venice and "when to go." Follow the links (or go directly to www.comune.venezia.it/maree/astro.asp#zip) and look at October's tidal chart. Tides will be highest in the first week of October 2005. If there is heavy rain and/or strong winds during the high tide period, there's a good chance of flooding. During low tide periods, chances of flooding are less.

You'll have a great time whichever place you choose.

Venice and Rome are very different from each other and appeal to people for different reasons. You should choose whichever appeals to you more. In Rome there are ancient Roman ruins throughout the city, under the modern buildings, surrounding them, and rising over them on the hills. I found this so compelling that for me the trip to Rome is one of the most worthwhile that I can imagine.

There are also outstanding Renaissance sites throughout the city, as well as a big city feel and lots of hectic traffic.

Venice is silent except for the church bells and the lapping of water against the buildings in the canals. No motor scooters, no problem crossing the street. Filtered light through coastal mist.

Both cities are well supplied with museums and churches.

Myself, I would choose Rome. Of all the places I have ever been, there were the most things I wanted to see in Rome. The view of the Forum from the Capitoline Hill, overlooking the many old stones of ruined monuments and temples, would seal the deal for me.

While Venice does have a higher proportion of ho-hum restaurants than Rome does (largely due to the particular daytripper patterns in Venice), some people (me included) prefer Venetian cuisine to what most people consider "Italian food."

Hi VE,

I would choose Venice over Rome, but I am biased.

I think that for a first timer, Venice is more readily absorbed and less stressful than Rome.

What is your itinerary?

ira aked what might be the deciding factor,"What is your itinerary?".
Of the two, I like Rome more. But, time should be a primary factor. 3 days isn't long if you caome in late the first and travel early the last.
Weather is another important factor mentioned here. While unpredictable, there can be a big difference in them both.
Good news though.
Whichever you choose, you'll be a winner!

So, VE, What do you like to do?
Why just 3 days?
Is it just you?
(The answers may make your choice clearer.)

As you can see, this is a tough question. So, I think your decision should be based on convenience and which city is easier to get to. Where are you traveling from? If from the states and you are actually using Italy as a second stopover, I would probably choose Rome if you are flying from a major city because it will be cheaper and easier to get to. However, if you are traveling rail and already in central Europe then Venice will be easier. Because you are only going for three days, I would choose the city easiest to get to and go with that. The cost of Venice will be higher, so figure this in your decision as well as a second factor. But, you will love either city- trust everyone who posted on that. If both cities were equal in convenience (just for point sake) then I would probably choose Rome for you just because you will see the major sights of Italy and ee the base of Italian culture and food. I love Venice, but I think it must be visited as a contrast to Italy as Venicians are Venicians first, Italian second and the culture does reflect this!

VisitingEurope,

I am a huge fan of Rome, but would not recommend it to a first time visitor to Rome with only 3 days. Save Rome for when you can do it justice (at least a week).

Venice is a small fraction of the size of Rome and could be highlighted in 3 days.