Venice vs. Rome
 

We have 12 days for our honeymoon and want to relax and enjoy our first trip to Italy. Have used your suggestions to trim down our orig. ambitious plans (thanks!). If you only had a few days in Late june/ early July to do either Rome or Venice which would you choose and why? (other places we plan to visit are<BR>Lake Como, Florence, Tuscany region, Cinque Terra). Thank you!

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding!<BR>We were in Italy in June and visited Lake Garda, Venice, Pisa, Carrara, Lucca, Florence and Rome. We drove from Venice to Pisa in one day, and that was a long haul. Since the other destinations on your itinerary are closer to Rome than Venice, I would suggest to stick to that side of Italy. <BR>We loved both Venice and Rome -- both have such different things to offer. If you enjoy history, Rome is the place to go. If you are Catholic (and even if you're not) and seeing the Vatican is important, go to Rome (St. Peter's and the Vatican Museum have to be seen to be believed).<BR>Venice is beautiful, easy to walk around, has the glass-making (which is cool), the expensive gondolas, and St. Mark's, which also has to be seen to be believed. The view from the Campanile is breathtaking. But I'd still save Venice for another trip when you can do it justice.<BR>Hope this helps.<BR>Pam B.<BR>

Being only a few days and your honeymoon, I would say Venice. Venice is one of the most romantic places on earth. It's also small and managable and easy to see in a few days. Rome could be a vacation by itself. A few days would just give you a taste. I would add Venice to the trip and save Rome for another time. Sounds like a great honeymoon!

E Roz: FWIW, while I believe Venice to be the most wonderful place in the world, I can't think of going to Italy without seeing Rome.

Both are fantastic, obviously. Given that you are already visiting more natural (Lake Como)and smaller settings, you might want to balance that with the big city adventure of Rome. While definitely worth a trip unto itself, it would be noisier, and more involved, like getting around NYC. Normally for culture I'd vote Rome, but you will be getting a lot of that in Florence. So, if its relaxation you want, for a first time visit I'd leave out Rome, enjoy the romance of Venice, and devote my next trip to Rome.

I agree with Venice, especially on your honeymoon. It is probably the most romantic city on the planet. I have come across people that don't love Venice and I always wonder what's wrong with them. I'm sure wherever you go in Italy will be wonderful. Enjoy!!!

Stay north and do venice. Save Rome and the Amalfi coast for next year.<BR>Twelve days--4 destinations. You have a nice tight loop that way.

I vote for Venice. There is nothing like it in the world, a very special place. You won't regret it for your honeymoon. A very romantic place.

For first timers on honeymoon, I'd fly into Milan and head for Como, then drive to Venice and dump your car, fly from Venice to Rome and head back to the US from Rome. I agree with many who say Venice is the most romantic and wonderful city on earth and also agree first timers shouldn't go to Italy without seeing Rome. <BR><BR>If it were me, I'd &quot;trim&quot; the 3 Tuscan destinations and do those on another trip. IMHO, I think Florence and all of Tuscany is overly romanticized by people who haven't been there yet or have never been anywhere else in the Italian countryside. It is &quot;nice&quot;, but Como, Venice and Rome are spectacular.

I too vote for Venice.<BR><BR>Not only is it very possibly the most romantic city on earth but it will surely leave you with wonderful memories at a very special time in your life.<BR><BR>It would be a far more relaxing end to your holiday than Rome, which without a doubt is a very big city with a multitude of big city problems - beggers and gypsy theives and is truly chaotic.<BR><BR>Venice has plenty of things to do for a few days but you won't be run off your feet whereas I think you would need more time in Rome to truly make it worthwhile.

I am one of those who can take or leave Venice -- to me it's an over-priced tourist trap with little to do or see. If you're tight on time, Venice can be well covered -- Rome takes a lifetime.<BR><BR>Also, I don't think Florence is over-estimated at all -- crowded, yes, but probably the greatest cultural treats per square foot anywhere, and a manageable place to walk everywhere.

I agree about Venice, but it will be REALLY crowded at that time of year. Don't stay in the San Marco area, or you'll never see anything but tourists. And reserve your hotel now.

Venice, Venice, Venice. Was in both Venice and Rome last July and Rome was much hotter and more crowded. Venice had plenty of people but you could just walk a few seconds off the main &quot;streets&quot; and be all alone. I'm glad I went to Rome but if I had to choose one it would definitly be Venice. Plus with the rest of your itineray Venice fits better. Agree with most of the other posters who say save Rome for some other time. Do Venice.

<BR>Rome is a great place but, since it's your honeymoon, choose Venice, one of the most romantic, magical, and visually stunning cities in Europe.