I know from experience more or less how jet-lagged I am after flying to Europe - the less confusion and more straightforward the next leg of the journy is on arrival the better.

I can start my Italy trip in either Venice or Rome. Which one is going to be the easiest to arrive at and get to a hotel given that I'm going to arrive half brain-dead?

Let's see. From Fiumicino you can take a taxi or town car to your hotel -- if you don't care about the expense. Otherwise, take the train from the airport to the Rome train station and then a taxi to your hotel.

In Venezia the expensive way is to walk a short ways from the airport to the water taxi stop and take that to your hotel. More cheaply, take a bus from the airport to Piazzale Roma and then the vaporetto to the stop closest to your hotel.

My personal preference is for recovering from jet lag in Venice. It's much less intense than Rome. And has fewer must-see tourist destinations. You can wander around in a jet-lagged haze (without having to worry about cars) getting lost and have a wonderful time.

I would choose Venice, also, if jet-lag will be a problem, for the same reasons Mimar states.
>-

Another vote for jet lag in Venice: smaller, slower-paced, no negotiating frenetic Italian traffic.

I always decide based on flights. I refuse to start a vacation changing planes. If I'm going to lose my luggage I want it to be on the way home - where you hae other ckothes, rather than the start of a vacation.

So I would do Venice only if you can get a direct flight. Otherwise I would do Rome. And - I think getting to your hotel in Rome is easier - the cab can pull up right in front - no wandering down alleys looking for it while dragging your luggage.

Agree that the time and schedule of the flight makes a difference, but all things being equal I prefer to start in Venice and leave from Rome.

In Venice, as mentioned, there are less 'sights' I feel compelled to see and it is the perfect, carless place to wander in and savor the atmosphere. On the last trip we arrived late from London but did not have too much difficulty getting the bus and then the vaporetto to our Dorsoduro B&B.

(But if I had been alone, the late night arrival and the wandering to find the B&B down tiny dark alleyways would have been more intimidating.)

Rome is so fun for that final night -- the lit-up fountains and monuments and all that energy! Great way to leave on an upbeat note.

I've done arrival in both Rome and Venice. I would choose Venice.

I don't think it matters, as long as you allow 2 days at the start of the trip to "do nothing" and get over the jet-lag. Because I love Venice so much, I'd probably save it for the end of my trip once I was feeling better.

But my method would be land Rome (I have never been there), taxi to hotel, hang around that one neighborhood sleeping it off for a couple days. I get horrible jet lag and it is worth it to sacrifice the first few days to relaxation, for the sake of my sanity the rest of the trip.

Problem with Venezia is that getting to your hotel can be quite a hassle. Where are you staying? Is it very obvious how to get there or is there a good chance you will get lost? Would you be willing to spring for the cost of a water taxi?

I find Roma a snap: Get off plane, get on train, get into taxi, walk into hotel.

By contrast, Venezia is get off plane, get on bus, get on vaporetto, get lost.

However, the upside of Venezia is that you can wander around your first day without feeling like you're being flayed alive by noise, exhaust and impatient waiters.

Just as a side note, for me Venezia is so crammed with things I want to see I find it dizzying to be there. Whereas many attractions in Roma I find missable. I guess I also feel Roma will always be there, and I worry Venezia is unsustainable. But that shouldn't concern you on your trip!

Everyone has a point here but I tend to agree with Nessundorma. I've been to Venice twice and finding a hotel there can be painful. Even if you decide to spring for a water taxi, that's only helpful if your hotel is right on a canal that is accessible to the water taxi. Otherwise you'll still have to walk around with your luggage when you get off the water taxi.

If you're jet-lagged in Rome, you can simply take in sights little by little. The big ones are the Coliseum and the Vatican but there are other things to do that won't require much brain activity.

I say start in Rome.

And another vote for Venice. We did it in 2003 arriving in Milan and then training to Venice. It was easy just to stroll around, window shopping, light dinner, trying to stay up until we could get on Venice time.

I'd do Rome first. When I'm jet lagged, I find it hard to find my way back home on the first evening and it Venice it could be close to impossible. In Rome, do the Pantheon, Spanish Steps, Trevi Fountain, perhaps Santa Maria sopra Minerva and a fwe other churches...."free" stuff, so if you feel like you didn't experience them properly, you can easily return.

I vote for Venice first. So pick a hotel very near a vapporetto stop or right on the Grand Canal. Easy to find!

I'd stay in Rome. The reasons has been said by other posters. The walking with suitcases, going up and down stairs in Venice is not appealing at all when you are jet-lagged.

Definitely Venice for us- we have done it both ways several times, and Venice is much more relaxing. We take the Alialunga (sp) waterbus from the airport- it's about a 45 minute ride from the airport to San Marco.It's a lovely beginning to arrive in Venice by sea!

Have your hotel send you a good map and directions so you won't have trouble finding your hotel. You can always ask directions from shopkeepers. Or you can get a porter when you get off the waterbus and he will carry your luggage and go with you to your hotel.

Hi again go,

Whichever you choose, highly recommend the Streetwise city maps. Very detailed, laminated so they hold up, and have all the major/minor sights and churches very nicely indexed.

venere.com will also help you in choosing a hotel by location.

I think it depends on airline schedules and on your itinerary. If you're only spending a couple of days in Venice, I wouldn't start there. It's too unique to experience in a fog. We started in Rome where we had lots of energy and ended in Venice where we had lots of time to relax and savor the city. Bottom line, they're 2 great cities and there really is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Dave

Thanks to all of you for your opinion. Since this is still all in the planning stages, I can adjust the number of days I spend in either city to accommodate a jet-lag day. Based on these comments, though, I'm leaning towards Venice - with a hotel that has access via a water taxi for less hassle.

Thanks again!

Ask yor doctor for Sonata, a short acting sleeping pill. Flying from Philladelphia to FCO, we took the pill an hour or two into the flight and woke up an hour before landing. It was great, no drowsiness and we hit the ground running. Why start your vacation needing to sleep all afternoon?
If you are adverse to taking anything, ignore this recommendation.
Worked like a charm for me.

You don't mention how long your trip to Italy (Rome? Venice?) will last. Having been there many times, I would fly into Rome. If you can afford a dual/hotel for Rome and Venice, you can check into your Rome hotel and take an evening train trip to Venice. Since the trip is several hours, you can catch up on your sleep. Arrive in Venice in the early morning (generally 7am) refreshed; see the city and return to Rome. Arriving in Venice without all of your faculties can be dicey! Good luck! PS: any room in your luggage for an additional passenger?