My vote is for Venice...you're already in northern Italy. Come back another time for Rome. i don't believe you can do both with 5 nights.

Rome. The first part of your trip is rather leisurely, so Rome and all it's excitement would be a good contrast. I spent 5 days there and barely scratched the surface of what I wanted to see and experience.

Venice. A lot more romantic than Rome.

I'd vote for Venezia ... there is no other place in the world remotely like Venice. Yes, it's touristy, but as someone else said, it's also romantic. The other thing is that Rome is a lot easier to get back to on a future trip. You can fly directly to Rome and it's not hard to find cheap excursions there. Go to Venice this time, but do plan another trip to Rome and surrounding areas.

Five days is definitely not too long for Venice, if you spend a little time researching the many things it offers.

Both cities are great--and quite different from one another. I'd flip a coin if I were you.

However, if it were me, I would choose Venice. The city itself is a unique world treasure, plus history, museums, art, concerts, etc. etc. etc. Five nights are certainly not too many, unless you haven't done your research and don't know all that the city has to offer. You can't even take in all the major sights in just 3 days.

But you won't be disappointed by either city. What a wonderful decision to have to make--you can't go wrong.

Hi Eloise,

I may have been carried away.

However, I found two Leonardo drawings in Venice. See http://www.abcgallery.com/L/leonardo/leonardo.html

Michaelangelo spent 2 years in Venice after he left Florence and before he went to Rome. He must have done something there.

Since this is a vote, I'll <i>write-in</i> another candidate. I'm voting for London.

...<i>[making sure my chads aren't hanging]</i>

Well, I'd find a way to do both -- unless you plan a return visit to one of these soon.

As you probably know from reading this forum, Volare flies between Venice and Rome. There should be an early morning flight from Venice to Rome, and you can arrive at Rome first thing in the morning. Alternatively, the train will take at least four hours.

Hi,
I think you should stay in N.Italy. I love Rome, but do the North now and then go for Rome. I suggest you throw in Verona for a day. It is on the way to Venice and a wonderful town. Then go to Venice for 4 days. That is a good amount of time. You can't go wrong with such great choices.

By the way, is there a reason why you're visiting Montreux? I know nothing about it and have nothing against it, but you can always take a night from Montreux and allocate it to Italy.

I am one of those people who think you need more than 5 days to see Roma, so I would visit Venice. There is just too much to see in Roma. You could spend two days at the Vatican alone.

I love both cities very much.

I am keeping a leg of the trip in Switzerland for two reasons: We fly into Switzerland, and we both love the area as well. In addition, having been to Switzerland, I get a &quot;warm fuzzy&quot; feeling about traveling there because I am familar with it. Make sense?

I'm obviously in the minority, but I'd visit both Venice and Rome given five nights unless I know that I'll be returning any time soon. Venice is pretty small (but there're a lot to see). Rome is much bigger, obviously, but if you map out the things you want to see judiciously, it won't be too bad. Once you get used to the idea that you can't possibly see everything, you'll be fine.

OK, here is the agenda:

Detroit-Rome non stop Sept 19

Venice - Amsterdam - Detroit Sept 29

I have nine nights to fill, and the last three are in Venice. The first four are in Rome, although the hotel is still not determined!

There are two nights in between. What would you experts do with those two nights?

Rome definitely.

Thanks, Amee. I was thinking about spending the two nights somewhere other than Rome or Venice, however. Any other thoughts?

Not an expert, but Florence would be the most obvious, no?

And if not, why not some time in Amsterdam? Rome, Venice, Amsterdam?

Ah - I just read your first post, not the last one! I guess you can be like everyone else and go to Florence.

I fly INTO Rome and OUT OF Venice, so Amsterdam is not in the cards. I was thinking of Verona for two nights, as kind of a place to relax after the hectic pace of Rome and before arriving in Venice.

Your thoughts, oh wise ones?

As much as I adore Verona, it's still a city. Why not head for the lakes? It would be a small detour, but it would give you a much different feel than either of the cities, plus give you something comparable to the Switzerland mountain/lake feel you like so much. I've only been to Lake Garda (which may make most sense logistically), and we could have easily spent a couple of nights in Riva, at the north end of the lake.