Travel to Italy

"Not a lot of time" and "pack in as much as possible" hints of what I call a "blink and run for the train" itinerary. Lots of people on this site do it. On this site, you will see many more recommendations to take more time at these great locations. For example, we spent 6 days and 5 nights just in Florence last year.

I would suggest picking either Northern Italy (Florence, Tuscany, Cinque Terre, Milan, Venice) or Southern Italy (Rome, Ovieto, Sorrento, Amalfi Coast). You don't have time for the whole country.

It would be helpful if you were flying into one city and flying out another. For example, if you were flying into Rome and out of Venice or visa-a-versa, you could do Rome, Florence and Venice. If you have to return to the same airport into which you arrived, you will have more travel time on the train.

Larry is right. For five nights, I would fly into Rome for two nights, go to Florence for two night and back to Rome for one night. Or go directly to Florence for two night and back to Rome for three nights.

If it were me (and it's not) with only five nights, I'd stay in Venice the entire time.

Obviously, you could stay in more than one location, but to really savor Italy and with the short time you have available, just stay in one spot for the entire five nights. Frankly any of the major sites will have more than you could possibly do in the time available. Suggest you pick from between the big three, Rome, Venice and Florence and stay put. You will have less travel expense and more time. Liek the Renaissance then it's Florence. Antiquities and the Vatican Rome. Venice for her uniqueness.

I would not spend any of the precious time in Italy traveling between cities by train or plane, which is going to eat up pretty much of one day. Pick one and stay there the entire time. Rome, Florence, or Venice -- you can't miss. There's a lot to "pack in" in each place. Go for quality, not quantity.

It would depend on if you want city or rural. If city - head for Rome.

If rural, head for Florence and plan trips out into the countryside.

If it were me - I'd head for Venice and just stay put.

If this is first trip, I would suggest Rome and Florence, possibly including a learn to cook pasta (with wine tasting) in the Tuscan Hills out of Florence. My wife and I did it last year and it was awesome (I was skeptical). There is so much to see and do in both places, you can't go wrong. By the way, I can give you details on the cooking excursion if you are interested (I will have to get the info from my wife who is out of town right now)

I did 6 days, 5 nights just in Rome...well, we did a day trip to Ostia Antica and a day trip to Orvieto.

We were kind of bored the last day, we'd wanted to go to Florence, but time and money kept us in Rome.

With 5 full days you can do lots in Rome with some easy day trips out, with 6, you could do 4 full in Rome and 2 in Florence.

All of this depends on which cities you fly into and out of! You should plan to fly into one and fly out of the other for best use of time.

If you do plan to base yourself in Venice, Verona would make an easy day trip. Bologna would be another easy day trip and so would Padova (Padua). While in Venice, take a vaporetto to the island of Burano to see the wonderful houses, all different colours side by side.

Hmmm. I think I would fly into Florence, a big city but much less of a headache/culture shock than Rome, which can be overwhelming, and spend three nights in Florence, including a day trip to a Tuscan hill town (Volterra? Or Siena?). Then I would train it to Venice (2.5 hours) for two nights, and fly home from Venice-Marco Polo. You'd get city life, countrylife, and...Venice: a life all its own.

I haven't been to Rome, but cannot imagine being bored after a few days there. Why were you bored Ellen? Too much to do, or not the things you liked?