cwj

I am planning a trip to Italy next spring one part of which will be 2, 3, or 4 days in Venice. I understand that Trieste is 2 hours by train from Venice. If we have the time, is a day trip from Venice to Trieste feasible, worth the effort?

Thanks.

PalenQ

I did exactly that and found Trieste to be a really unique and interesting and lovely place - kind of a backwater from its history but also a blending of Germanic, Slavic and Italian culture - there is not only an inviting sea front but a deftly restored Old Town on a hill that shines with old-world flare and romance.

I loved the trek but I am not sure everyone will be agog with Trieste ("Tree-est-uh" it seemed they were saying) - many I am sure will say spend all your days in Venice and its lagoon, like to Burano, Murano, Torcello, back preceints, etc.

But yes Trieste to me was something different - especially for Italy.

qwovadis

Been there done that underwhelming not as pretty more austrian

in vibe where the HapsBurgs used to beach...long slog by train

venice-tourism.com eurocheapo.com Venice for best day trips

Torcello island in the lagoon oldest place in Venice

awesome mosaics alleged "throne" for Atilla the

"scourge of God" makes an easy fun visit...

Prettiest overnite if u can make more time

2 hours the other way to www.sirmione.com Pearl of Garda

An amazing town castle roman ruins ferries.

Hotel Eden my fav light years better than Trieste for me.

Happy Planning,

Trav_Eller

I had the same feelings about Trieste; interesting but a bit far for a day trip. But I was in a car and able to make other side trips on the way, so we spent only a couple of hours there.

If you do go, consider a break to see Aquileia en-route. Looking at the rail map you would get out at Cervignano; you would gave to take a cab from there to Aquileia about five miles south. There are some old Roman ruins there (it was capital of the Roman Empire for a brief period), but to me the old Basilica that had been buried under the mud for a thousand years was fascinating. I mention it, and Trieste, briefly here: http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2007...d-trieste.html

Cheers, Alan, Australia

Trav_Eller

PS With my ham-fisted two-fingered typos I really wish Fodors had an edit facilty

Cheers, Alan, Australia

nz101

bookmarking

bobthenavigator

It may be worth a day trip, but only after 5 days seeing Venice and a day trip to Verona--it is all relative.

JulieVikmanis

put me down as another non-Trieste recommender. I had it on my list for years, finally got there and didn't find it all that interesting. Ok as a drive through on your way to something else IMO but not as a destination and certainly not as a day trip taking you away from Venice.

Redlandsneen

I was also planning a day trip to Trieste from my base in Venice and I've noted some remarks that it is not worth taking time away from Venice, etc. I have been to Venice before and have seen the "major" sights although there is always much, much more to see. However, "Il Castello di Miramare" in Trieste was recommended to me. I note from the guidebooks that it is about 7-8 kms from the main town. Has anyone been there and might there be a bus or other public transport to get there? I won't have a car for that part of the trip. Thanks.

Sassafrass

I certainly would not go to Trieste unless I had already been to Vicenza.

Sassafrass

Oh, I do note, this is topping an old post.

kja

@ Redlandsneen: You might check rome2rio.com. It looks to me like you can get there by public transportation, but that website is not always fully accurate, so track down the links it gives you.

Redlandsneen

Sassafrass - I think Vicenza is another day trip I want to make, along with Verona. So you're saying Vicenza is much more worth the travel than Trieste.

Sassafrass

Not that it is more worth the travel, just that Vicenza is such a short trip from Venice and is an absolute Mecca for anyone with an interest in Palladian architecture. The interior of Teatro Olimpico is a truly perfect space and the stage is incredible. Vicenza is small and walking there is a joy. There is a lovely open market with local cheese, bread, etc. I forget which day. The only problem with Vicenza is you will wish you had a couple of days because different buildings are open different days and times. You can see only two or three on any given day, so you have to check that carefully. Vicenza is a real gem.

annw

Agree about Vincenza, and Verona, as day trips out of Venice, and even Lake Garda as mentioned above, which I toured (Sirmione) during a week in Verona.

Trieste has been on my list, too, but I've never quite made it there. One day, when I have more time to spare.

PalenQ

Loved Vincenza Palladio fan or not - as a city IMO much nicer than Padua which though has some compelling reasons to visit it to - just not for a neat old town IMO.

bvlenci

We visited Trieste, by car, about five years ago. It was an interesting trip, including a stop at Aquileia, which was the highlight of the trip for me. Aquileia was the de facto capital in the dying days of the Roman Empire, and a very important center of early Christianity. Some of the earliest remains in the crypt of the basilica date to the 4th century, including some ancient mosaics.

The Castle of Miramare wasn't open when we were there; I forget why. We visited the gardens, which were nice, but rather neglected, like many Italian gardens.

The Castle of Duino, in the town of the same name, is just north of Trieste and easily reached by bus. It's a very picturesque 14th century castle on a cliff by the sea. It's still privately owned and inhabited,by the House of Thurn and Taxis (what a name for a noble family!) but you can visit it.

We actually stayed in Duino rather than in Trieste. The town has a very Slovenian atmosphere, and is a bilingual town. The restaurant where we ate had Slovenian dishes.

I don't know how to evaluate whether any trip is "worth the effort". The effort doesn't seem great, and the benefits would depend on what you're hoping to see or do. I can guarantee that it's very different from the typical Italian city.

In fact, although the city itself was a largely Italian-speaking city, it was part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire until after World War I, and the surrounding countryside was overwhelmingly Slovenian. Mussolini enacted an enforced Italianization of the population, but not wholly successfully. The Italian-speaking population grew after World War II, due to the persecution of Italians in the newly formed state of Yugoslavia, which caused many of them to flee to Trieste and the adjacent areas, which were part of Italy.