Meeting friends in Central Italy where we'll be staying for one week. We have 7 days prior to meeting at the villa on the front end. Considering flying into either Venice or Rome. Would like to spend time in both places, but don't want to be rushed. Thoughts?
Spend three days in one, take an afternoon train to the other and spent another three days. IF I have to choice only one it would be Rome with maybe a day trip or two out of the city.
I think 7 days is a good time frame to see both Rome and Venice. I typically go to Venice for 3-4 days at a time and Rome for about 3 days. That seems like enough time to get a good sense of the place but not get overwhelmed.
While you could spend a lot more time in Rome, it seems to me that most first time visitors can get overwhelmed and exhausted with everything to see there, so when I'm dragging my friends all over Italy, I try to limit their time there. I generally have a day for seeing the Vatican, a day for seeing the Colosseum and the Roman Forum, and a day for seeing the other big touristy sights. By then we've put a lot of miles on our shoes and are looking for something a little less intense.
Easyjet.com has relatively cheap flights between Rome and Venice. I usually see them for 19-25 euro per person, plus 10 euro or so in fees. It's generally cheaper than the train.
Ciao,
Meredith
Thanks Everyone! Our villa is in Montepulciano. I like Merideth's idea of splitting our time between Rome and Venice. Here is another question: what airport should we fly into from Portland, Oregon?
To get from Amsterdam to Venice, fly.If it's Milan to Venice, take a train.Venice to Rome, train.Rome to Montepulciano, take a train from Rome to Orvieto, then rent a car in Orvieto.
I'd try to start in Venice. You can relax and enjoy the city while you get over the jetlag. Venice has atmosphere. For me, 3 days is perfect. Rome is a big city with lots of sights spread around.
In any event, Venice is better before 9-10 am and after 4-5 pm. It has many, many day-trippers from the cruise ships.