I have been working on a trip that includes Rome, Florence, Venice and Cinque Terre (not in that order)..... I was wanting to do 10-12 days and now husband is saying 7... so unless I can get him to change his mind, what do we cut out?? I'm guessing it will be CT but we are also both very active/adventurous so I know we would love that area. I know its a personal decision, but as a first-timer, I'd love some honest feedback to help guide us with this itinerary.
Thank you!
Depending on your interests and usual pace of travel, in 7 days I would look to do just 2 of those. Best international flight options are likely Rome then Venice, so those may make sense as a pair (fly in to one, out of the other). Or fly in and out of Rome and pair it either with Florence or CT.
Just my 2 cents!
I love the idea of getting out in the open and being active. When visiting Nice, France, climbing one of the cliffs was a "must do."
With that said, you are doing Italy, not the Cumberland Gap trail. Become part of Italy and experience the culture, the sounds, the smells, the flavors. See some of the most beautiful pieces of art in the world, the Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michelangelo's David, the mosaic arches of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice.
Seven days is really too little time to see three cities, but as a sampler, as a taste of Italy, that may be all you have to spare. Try to become an Italian and just absorb two or three cities. Here's my travel philosophy: maximize the experiences you can't get at home. The Roman Forum, St. Peter's, the Duomo in Florence, the Doge's Palace and the canals of Venice. I've been to Italy a dozen times and have never seen the Cinque Terre, but someday I will. There are just too many other sights and things to see before then.
BTW, after dragging your ass around Rome for a day, you will definitely feel like you have been "very active." Have fun!
Carrie, how many nights will you have on the ground in Italy? Do your 7 days include your travel to the country and/or travel home?
If you only have 7 days, you may want to focus on just 2 of those places you mentioned. Rome and Venice are the outliers geographically, but many folks will probably suggest doing those two, as there's a high-speed train that connects them. Also, if you're flying into or out of Rome, it makes sense that this would be one of the places you spend some time.
If it were me, and I was looking for a mix of "culture" and adventure and only had 7 days, I'd go with CT and Florence, because they're relatively close, so you can maximize being there and not waste a lot of time traveling.
The other thing you need to do is assume you'll be back. So not getting to one or two of the places you thought you'd see this time is simply fuel for your next adventure.
I agree completely. The first and last day of any trip are wasted days getting in and getting checked into and out of the hotels. And you lose a day anytime you change cities.
Rome is a 4 day minimum city. Florence is a 3 day city. Venice is a 3 day city.
Italy is just so full of history, art, architecture and food and the country is best taken slowly.
Change his mind.
Hopefully the seven days does not include your arrival departure days. So seven full days considering that two nights equals one day in a place.
To spend so much money and time to fly to Europe, you really should add more days to maximize your expensive trip there and home, in money and time.
Let him come home early while you stay an extra week. Fly into Venice, do Venice and Florence together, then he can fly home and you can see the Cinque Terre and Rome. It's easy to get around solo in Italy - you can get almost everywhere by train.
12 days ( excluding arrival and departure days) would make for a spirited, but doable pace for your 4 destinations
10 days would make 3 reasonable
7 days is a 'pick 2' , or else you are just dashing about trying to 'stay on schedule'.
Is this 7 days in Italy, or 7 days in Italy as part of a longer trip to more of Europe?
Personally, I think for most people, it's not worth going to Europe for just 7 days. If your entire trip is just 7 days, you end up with about just 4-5 full days of usable time. And that's enough time for just 1 or 2 cities.
It costs a lot to fly to Europe so (unless you have lots of extra money, or you can go frequently and don't care that it's an inefficient use of your money) I think it makes sense to stay for a minimum of 2 weeks. That way you get a lot more for your airfare.
Negotiate with husband for 10 days. Remind him how much you're paying for airfare. Start trip on a Friday; fly home Sunday or Monday. That way, he only misses one full week of work. Fly into Rome and out of Venice and maybe do Florence in between.
We usually take three weeks every time we go to Italy. Yes, just to Italy. We go every year and we haven’t even scratched the surface.
We went to France last month for only 10 days and that was our shortest trip across the pond to date. It was fine because we only visited two locations within 2 hours of Paris as well as Paris. But it truly felt like a long weekend. That’s a lot of money, time traveling, adjusting from jet lag, etc. Unless you already live in Europe and you’re talking about this trip, I personally wouldn’t even bother. Just go to Florida or California, depending on which side of the US you are on.
Talk him into two weeks. And by talk him into it, I mean buy the non refundable airfare first and then tell him about the itinerary.
Talk him into two weeks. And by talk him into it, I mean buy the non refundable airfare first and then tell him about the itinerary.
I sure hope this is a tongue in cheek suggestion
If we're assuming 7 nights, then I'm flying into Florence and out of Rome, and visiting only those places. Maybe a daytrip from Rome to Orvieto or a long daytrip, Rome to Pompei.
Yes, negotiate 2-3 more days if you can. And even if you do that, I'm not so sure I would add any other stop. To me, 10 nights would be 4 nights Florence, 6 nights Rome, with daytrips. This way you're feeling the vibe of each destination, and developing a daily routine rather than rushing around checking off sites, which is no way to travel.
Enjoy your planning!
We did what I call a "if it is Wednesday, we must be in Florence" tour of Italy, because of limited time. Most travelers would consider it crazy rushed.
Day 1 afternoon arrival /2: Venice St Mark's, Doge's Palace, DFS mall (great canal view), glass blowing demo. Depart for Florence late evening.
Day 3: Florence: Michaelangelo's David, Duomo, Uffizi Gallery, late evening Pisa/Leaning Tower. Overnight in Pisa.
Day 4: Cinque Terre (express train from Pisa only an hour), return to Florence late evening, then Piazzale Michaelangelo in Florence
Day 5: Depart for Rome. Vatican/Sistine Chapel official tour, and also Coliseum
Day 6: Trevi fountain, Spanish steps, just walking around, late evening depart for Athens
We researched trains and bought tickets in advance for the shortest transit times between Venice/Florence/CT/Rome. And we did find time in Florence for my wife to shop for leather handbags, and in Rome for other shopping. In a sense, our snapshot tour could be similar to conducted tours, except that we covered many more places.
Based on this snapshot tour, we will plan a longer trip to Italy in the next year or two. Incidentally, we arrived in Venice after a connection in London (our roundtrip tickets were SF Bay Area -London). Our trip to Europe was 14 days, excluding travel days from/to the US.
I would cut out the Cinque Terre. My husband and I are both avid hikers and were excited about visiting the Cinque Terre, but it proved to be the biggest disappointment out of all our trips to Europe. No magic - just really really crowded.
Reasonable minds differ, but that is my two cents.
April, I'm loving your definition of "talking him into it". I will keep that in mind as a strategy.
traylaparks:
I would cut out the Cinque Terre. My husband and I are both avid hikers and were excited about visiting the Cinque Terre, but it proved to be the biggest disappointment out of all our trips to Europe. No magic - just really really crowded.
I thought the Cinque Terre was awesome and almost magical (more so at sunset) - but you're right, it can get really crowded. I can't imaging trying to hike in the summer - I wouldn't. The OP doesn't mention what time of year she would be visiting. If summer, I'd agree; if late September, I'd say go.
There are plenty of other hikes in the Italian Riviera that might not be so crowded. Last year I hiked from Camogli to San Fruttuoso (about an hour north of the CT by train) and at one point didn't see another hiker for over an hour. Amazing views but also a difficult, sometimes scary hike.
@joe32F— no, I meant it in all seriousness. Sometimes one has to be the reasonable one!
@cala— this isn’t my first rodeo. 😉😂
For a first-timer, with only a week, I'd recommend Rome and Venice. Split the time evenly, or spend a little more time in Rome.
Rome has so much to see, you'll hardly scratch the surface if you spend a whole week there.
And everyone should see Venice at least once. I'll be making my third trip to Venice later this year.
For me the best place on your list should be the one to cut: Rome
the reason being is it requires the most time of the 4 and you just don't have the time
Unfortunately for you Rome is usually the best to fly into / out of but to make best use of your time for Florence/Cinque Terre/Venice in either order it would be best to fly into Pisa or Florence and out of Venice or vice versa.
In our opinion, Cinque Terre = quite rocky sidewalk with very many people.
For us, hiking has to embrace a certain amount of solitude. CT will not provide that.
One thing I should have mentioned in my earlier post. One has to be clear why you're visiting a particular country. Are you going to Italy to briefly visit popular sites in different cities like St. Mark's in Venice (just as an example), maybe take a gondola ride, with the priority being activities like hiking? Are you also an art lover, who could spend an entire day at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence?
Rather than saying you need so many days in each city, I would first decide what is it that you want to see in each city, and then allocate time accordingly. We looked at popular tours like Trafalgar (and of course Rick Steves books and tours) to get an idea where they take their groups, and decided what was important for us to see. I can honestly say that we were generally happy with the time that we had allocated (except for Florence, where my wife wished she had more time for shopping).
Regarding Cinque Terre, avoid the weekend if possible.
Not everyone can take a 2 week plus trip. Any time spent in a place you really want to go can be worth it! Don’t let anyone make you feel bad if your trip can just be 7 days. Seven days is better than none, and when I want to go to Italy, setttling for some place else will not do! That said, in 7 days my preference would be one or two places only. Which one or two would depend on what interests you most. You can make any two work. I love Rome so I wouldn’t leave that out! I do prefer to start and end my trip close to the airport or airports I will be using. Given your timeframe if I wasn’t going to stay in Rome for 7 days I’d probably fly into Venice and stay for 2 nights and then go to Rome for the rest, flying out of Rome.
