first time to italy

I really don't want to sound snarky, but your questions are literally all over the map. No one can really suggest where to go or for how long without knowing what interests you and what you priorities (and budget) are. I would suggest heading to your library or bookstore and getting a couple of current guide books on italy, and go from there.

Are you thinking about a Rick Steves tour? If so, you can also post in the RS Tours section of the travel forum.

Your trip will be wonderful but incomplete at 14 days (which is really only 12) and painfully so at 9 days (really 7). Which every you decide, please heed the advice you'll receive from this forum! My suggestions: get a guide book. Maybe do one city/region at a time and dream. Watch some movies (Roman Holiday, Rome Adventure, Summertime are some of my favorites for scenery) and see what places really get your interest. Also, "seeing" the major sites and "doing" the tourist requirements are only small parts of the Italy experience. Spend time "being" there. Leisurely walks, long late dinners, fewer 'main attractions' each day not only help you to enjoy your trip but will make sure that memories, good memories, are there to feed your dreams for your next trip to Italy. Make the planning part of the fun!

There is always that first trip. For our first trip we chose Rome and the Amalfi Coast. In our minds, Rome was a must see, but we also wanted to get away from the hustle and bustle of a big city to a more serene environment. We took the Frecca train from Rome to Salerno which became our base camp to explore the Amalfi ( primarily on ferries), take a train to Naples to see the Archaeological Museum and another train to see Pompeii. On our second trip (having just returned) we went to crowded but beautiful Venice, trains to the crowded Cinque Terre, trains to Varenna on Lake Como. Of all these places, our favorites are the Amalfi and Varenna. I'm sure other travelers have their own opinion, but these are our suggestions.

...aaaaand....

Is 9 days enough or should I do minimum 14 days?

For most people* (who do not get to visit Europe very often - see below for my assumption), I think it's really foolish to go for such a short time - 9 days is crazy IMHO since you eat up 2-4 days getting there and getting back. Yes, I understand everyone has limits on their vacation time. But you spend a lot of money just flying there and back, to me it's a waste to go to Europe for less than 2 full weeks. Many people who have not been to far-away places (or haven't been recently) fail to account for the time/inefficiency that's required to drag your butt to the other side of the world.

Now, if you have lots of money and don't mind dropping a couple thousand bucks just for flight expenses on what boils down to just a long weekend, or if you are lucky enough that you can fly to Italy as often as you want, hallelujah, good for you (I'm jealous).

I have "personal minimums" I try to remember for trips to the other side of the world. Just my humble opinion, but...

• It's not worth it to go to Europe for less than 2 weeks minimum
• It's not worth it to go to Asia for less than 3 weeks minimum (takes longer to get there for me, YMMV)

If someone was going to pay for me to fly to Paris for a weekend, sure, I'd go (but I'd try to find some way to stay longer).

Longer trips give you the chance to slow down and actually enjoy the place more. Short trips tempt you into trying to cram too many things in, resulting in a less satisfying trip.

All my figures are for full, usable, days on the ground, not including the day you arrive or depart.

*I'm guessing that the OP, like most readers/contributors here, lives in North America or someplace else far away from Europe, and will have a limited number of opportunities to travel to Europe in their lives. Some people are close by and can hop to Italy easily. Other fortunate folks live far away but have managed to arrange their lives in a way that allows them to travel to Europe frequently. I think those are exceptions and I figure that for most of us, a trip to Europe is a special treat that you can't easily replicate many times per year. That's why I think it makes sense to have a 'minimum usable time at destination' guideline. For me, 9 days in Europe is too short for any trip I'm paying for.

Signature tour or cultural connection?

Suzanne, this is confusing as it sounds like you're looking at package tours. Could you clarify what you mean?

Aside from that, first-timers to anywhere at all should go to the locations which most interest them. Consideration should also be given to how you want to get around as some are more easily/efficiently accessed by public transit and others might require car rental. Additional considerations include time of year you'll be wanting to travel, budget, and any special limitations, such as mobility, which could make certain locations more difficult to manage than others.

As we don't know anything at all about you, spending some time with guidebooks is the best place to start. And yes, more days are always preferable to fewer! :O)

Italy is so amazing, any length of trip is good to be honest! Ideally go for as long as you can because there are so many high quality destinations. Below are the itineraries for three different trips we've made to Italy. Each one was awesome:

VENICE
10 days. No side trips.
Pros = You really get to know Venice.
Cons = 10 days is really too long. If you go for 10 days I'd recommend adding some nearby destinations you can get to by train, like Padua, Ferrara, or Ravenna.

ROME
12 days. Two side trips (Florence and Pompeii)
Pros = Rome!! We spent a total of 8 days in Rome alone and still had plenty more we wanted to see. I've heard that some people don't like Rome but I can't imagine why. The food, the energy, the history, it's all so amazing!
Cons = Not everybody wants a deep dive on Rome like that.

ACROSS ITALY
21 days. Fly into Venice, out of Rome.
Destinations: Venice to Ravenna to Florence to Orvieto to Assisi to Sorrento to Rome to Sicily. Then back to Rome on the way home (we didn't leave the airport, just went home).
Pros: You get a lovely cross section of Italy, with a huge variety of experiences. We did a gondola ride in Venice, a winery tour in Tuscany, took a day cruise out of Sorrento, etc.
Cons: It can be tiring to be on the move all the time.

So really, it depends on what makes you the happiest, and how much time you have available. My overall advice is, if you are short on time pick one city and then take day trips to nearby destinations to round out your trip. Italy's train system is pretty good and we never had any trouble.

Italy is such an awesome destination, just start with asking yourself what you genuinely enjoy and then build a trip around that. Do it your way, whatever that is!

I’m also of the school of thought that going to Italy for less than 2 weeks is a waste of money (although I have gone there for as little as 5 days, from California), so if you have flexibility with your vacation time, you should try to go for at least 2 weeks (but 3 would be better). Anything beyond 4 weeks might be too rough, as eventually living off one suitcase becomes old.

Regarding where to go, that is up to you. So you need to do some research and determine what your interests are. For sure you need to scale down your ambitions and focus on specific parts of the country, because to go where you mention, which is all over the map, not even 3 weeks are sufficient.

Sicily should be regarded as a separate country because it’s far out from the rest of the country, it’s big, it’s very rich with history with plenty of sights and natural beauty. You need a minimum of two weeks to see Sicily alone (and not even all of it).

suzanne,

As the others have so succinctly pointed out, 14 days is a minimum for a trip to Italy, especially a first trip. It would help to know......

• have you travelled to Europe before?
• does your 14 day time frame include your two flight days?
• as someone else mentioned, are you referring to a guided tour or travel on your own?
• what prompted this desire to visit Italy, and what do you hope to see?
• when is this trip taking place?

In any case, I'd highly recommend buying a copy of the RS Italy guidebook, as that will provide you with a lot of good information. I assume you're aware that RS also offers tours (they're outstanding).

As the others have mentioned, you won't have time on such a short trip to cover all your desired locations. As Roberto mentioned, Sicily really deserves it's own trip. Positano is not as easy to get to & from as it doesn't have a rail link. My suggestion would be to limit this first trip to Rome and the north, and plan the south and Sicily on a future trip.

Good luck with your planning!

I'll add a slightly dissenting viewpoint. Neither 9 days nor 14 days is enough time for "Italy." But if that's all the time you have, you can certainly see a part of Italy. How much time you have will determine how large a part you can see. So, if you only have 9 days, just accept, right now, that you won't see more than a small amount of the country, and if you have 14 days, accept right now you will see a slightly larger amount.

I have, over the years, taken about 7 trips to Italy (yes, I've lost count). Each of them has only been for about 10 nights, so I see a small part on each trip. That's worked out well; what would have been a serious problem would have been to try to see too much on a trip. Not only is that exhausting for any place, but it's particularly self-defeating for Italy, a place that works much better when savored than rushed through.

As for what to see the first time, again, there are different schools of thought. Many would say the "big three" of Venice, Florence, and Rome are must sees (and they are the big three for a reason). But you should go to the places that draw you. On my first trip, I went to Milan, Venice, and Florence, with day trips to Siena, Lucca, and Pisa. I didn't go to Rome on that trip, and people were scandalized - "how can you visit Italy and not see Rome?" But it just didn't draw me at the time. However, on that trip I got the desire to see Rome, so I made it the focus of my second trip, and loved it. Who knows how I would have felt if I had merely gone out of obligation?

However, all that said, I agree that Sicily is worthy of a separate trip, given the logistics of getting there from the mainland (I spent 10 nights there and rushed around, and only hit some of the highlights). And the Cinque Terre and Positano are not only time-consuming to connect, but will give you two small town sea-side experiences, with less variety than many other combinations of places.

Start by reading as much about Italy as you can. Look at Rick's Italy guide, as well as other books (raid your library). Look at videos; Rick's are here (scroll down and click Italy): https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show.

, I have to disagree with those you said it’s not worth it to go to Europe under 14 days. We went for 10 nights and had the time of our lives.

OP, our itenerary was

2 nights Venice, the fast train to Rome

4 nights Rome, then fast train to Amalfi Coast

3 nights Positano

1 night Naples then home from there.

We found the train rides fun and relaxing after all the sight seeing and activity. We packed in carryon only, so it was easy peasy to repack. We loved the variety of places we went. Of course 14 nights would have been better, but we were fine with 10.

First timers typically do Venice, Rome , Florence. I really wanted to relax on the Amalfi Coast, though.

First timers typically do Venice, Rome , Florence

I am sure you mean Venice, Florence, Rome

That is a good way to find out if you care to come back.

And time your train trips to cover your lunch and buy something before entering the station so you can have a picnic on the train. Some sandwiches or a salad and a bottle of wine (remember glasses) - ahhh the memories.

Just got back from 12 nights - Rome 4, Assisi 2, Florence 3, Venice 3. It was fine for us.