Finally, I have the "Mid-September 2004 Nine Nights in Europe" trip itinerary - ALMOST!

Fly into Switzerland - Geneva, on to Montreux for two nights. Train to Lugano/Bellagio/Varenna for two more nights. Then, I am torn between the last five nights in Venice or Rome. I simply cannot decide.

I was to both cities in 1975, but my wife has never been to either, and 1975 is SO LONG ago that I consider myself never having been to either of them.

I guess the simple question is: Venice or Rome for five nights in mid-September?

Your vote counts. I will tally the votes and decide accordingly...

Thanks!

Rome. Venice is wonderful and charming and unforgettable. But Rome is 2,500 years of Italy - and world - history in a single city - how could you resist?

Rome would also be my choice because I think 5 nights is the perfect amount of time to spend there whereas it would be too long for Venice. And I truly love Venice, but I would get restless after night 3.

Ditto Padbrasher!!!

Thanking those for the early opinions ...

Throwing in a little twist, you don't suppose I can try to squeeze in both Venice and Rome, do you?

Hi dw,

Three votes for Venice.

The world is full of old cities with crumbling ruins.

There is only one Venice.

You might want to do a daytrip to Padua or Verona.

If I were you, I would certainly try!!

You don't say how you plan to get from place to place, but I think I'd add a day or two to your first destinations and then spend 3 nights in Venice. For me, three nights in each of those general locales would be much better.

One question you have to ask yourself is when will you be back in Italy. My husband makes us cram everything into our trips because we only travel to Europe every few years. My vote is Venice. We spent 5 nights there (only time I could get my hubby to stay in one place that long) and we loved it. We actually took a day trip to Florence and it was heaven. We wondered the streets of Venice getting lost on the more non-touristy side of the city. I have heard people complain that they could see it in a day but I beg to differ. The reason we love it so much is because we took our time.

No cars, just the chuggin sounds of the boats. Ahhhh heaven!

My friend did do the Venice/Rome thing and traveled overnight on the train. SHe said it was hard but she did it. Enjoy!

Boy, that's a tough one because the cities aren't close to being alike and both have so much to offer. I haven't been back to italy for a number of years but of the three cities i visited, Rome, Florence, and Venice, Venice is the one that's calling to me. Hard to put into words...it's such a personal thing. I have returned to Paris and loved it and can't wait to go again and on the other hand, you couldn't pay my brother enough money to go back there. I guess your choice might depend on the things you really want to see as far as the historical sights so I would say do some additiol research on the things each city has to offer, read the posts that answer your question, and then consider whether or not you think you will ever get back to italy and make the call. Draw straws perhaps? LOL Where ever you decide just know that the choice will NOT be wrong.

Venice -- before it sinks!

I agree with grasshopper--add more time then do venice.

I concur with Grasshopper and bobthe naviator...three days in Rome and three in Venice would be ideal. However, if five days are the total amount of time you can spend in either or both, I still vote for Roma.

Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome. (That's five votes for your five nights.) Venice is great, no doubt, but it's Disneyland compared to the authenticity, vitality, culture, history and ambience of Rome. We're returning (third time) in October, this time for a week (previous stays four days each) and we feel as if we will finally be able to see Rome beyond the tourist path - the neighborhoods, the out-of-the-way piazzas and ristorantes -and spend some quality time in the museums and great churches and other ancient sites. There is a quality to Rome not found elsewhere and in my humble opinion you will feel more enriched for having spent the time there as opposed to Venice.

>Venice is great, no doubt, but it's Disneyland compared to the authenticity, vitality, culture, history and ambience of Rome.<

Humph! Balderdash! Nonsense!

I am humbled - Ira has replied to my thread!!

Seriously, though, please elaborate. I enjoy your comments and insight.

Hi dwz,

Thanks for the compliment.

We have been to Venice about 11 times and still have a long "must see" list.

We were there last Sept. The city was cleaned up a lot for the Y2K.

Truman Capote described Venice as "a box of bonbons". I can't do better.

It is probably the most romantic city in the world.

Get up early and watch the sunrise down by San Marco. See the fish market open up in the morning. Take a vaporetto ride from the train station to the Lido at dusk and come back in the dark to see the city lit up.

There is so much excellent art and architecture hidden away in small campos and churches that walking anywhere is pleasure. Where else can you find great works by Titian, Canneletto, Tintoretto, Veronese, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael, etc. so compactly displayed?

Go out to Burano and Torcello for pleasant, small town hospitality.

Also, Venice is not more expensive than Rome or Florence. It just takes a little more looking.

Have a great trip, whatever you decide.

Ira,

Jog my memory, please. Where are the works by Michelangelo, Leonardo and Raphael in Venice?

My vote's for Venice. For me it's one of the most magical places in the world.

P.S. You also could do 2 nights Florence and 3 Venice and this way get more art and variety.