Please sign in to post.

Florence, Rome AND Naples?

I'm looking into going to Italy at the beginning of next April with some friends for about 8 days. This will be my first trip to Italy. We're trying to decide between doing a blitz of Florence/Tuscany, Rome, and Naples/Amalfi Coast in that period or whether it would be better to save Florence/Tuscany for another trip. Any advice?

Posted by
7737 posts

Not surprisingly, it depends on what you enjoy doing. Share that, and you'll get more helpful responses. Good luck.

Posted by
4152 posts

It wouldn't be a trip I would take but each person has their own traveling style. I can tell you that you'll be changing hotels almost every night and spending a lot of your time on the train. I would spend all 8 days in Rome with one day trip to Naples and Pompeii. This will allow you to relax and really enjoy the city. Talk to your friends and get their thoughts about how much they want to travel and how much time they want to spend in each place. Donna

Posted by
10344 posts

Changing hotels every night is tough. A rule of thumb used by some experienced Italy travelers is that every change of hotels eats up about 4 hours, NOT including the travel time to get to the next destination. It also matters how many full days you have "on the ground", not including the flying in day and the flying out day.

Posted by
222 posts

I agree that you don't want massive amounts of your time wasted by changing hotels often, but wow, I didn't know that each hotel change eats up four hours! How do you figure that? I suppose there's the half hour or an hour packing up and checking out of the old hotel, and getting to the train station (let's suppose) which might eat up another 20-30 minutes. Then when you arrive in the new place you have to get from the train station to the new hotel, another 20-30 minutes. Then check in. That doesn't seem like four hours- how do you figure?

Posted by
10344 posts

The 4 hrs is just a rule of thumb that varies with the facts, but has been bought into by a lot of folks here, actually you're the first person I can remember questioning it - which is ok, questions are good! Let's go through it: the avg of 4 hours comes from a comparison of changing hotel location, compared to staying in the same hotel. Let's go through it: When you change locations, first you go around your room, grab your stuff, and pack it back into your luggage - takes some people longer than others, but it takes time. Then go down, wait in line and check out. Then wait for a taxi, or bus, or walk to the train station; or get to the carpark, which in European cities probably isn't in the parking lot right outside your hotel. If taking the train, takes time to get to the train station, might take 15 mins but might take 30 mins or more; then buy a ticket, wait for the train. Okay, stop the stopwatch there, since we're not including travel time to the next destination. Start the stopwatch again when you get to the next destination, say a train station. Get off the train, walk through the station, get transportation to your hotel, or find the hotel if you're driving, if you're driving, add time to find the parking, then find the hotel. Then check in. Then to your room and unpack your stuff and freshen up - if you don't do it upon check-in, you still have to do it later that night and it adds time that wouldn't be needed if you weren't changing locations. On average, I submit all the above takes ~4 hours, on average, maybe you can do it in 3. Let's say you check out of your hotel at 9 and it gets dark at 7 or 8, or you get tired or hungry at 7 or 8. The 3 or 4 hours has eaten significantly into your day. And this does NOT include the travel time to your next destination, let's say that's 3 more hours. First timers are left wondering where their day went.

Posted by
1170 posts

You will not be able to enjoy a trip such as this crammed into 8 days. Travel will easily eat up half a day. Rome is a "must do" and you will need 4 days minimum to do it justice. As far as Florence/Tuscany and Naples/Amalfi Coast, that's a tough call. In April, the water will still be cold so if you want to take a dip while along the Amalfi Coast, you might be disappointed. It is not exactly tourist season there yet in early April. If I had to make the decision, with it being a first trip to Italy, I would choose Florence/Tuscany and save Amalfi for your next trip. Florence is so historic and the Tuscan countryside will be beautiful that time of year.

Posted by
32213 posts

Erin, I have to agree with Scott. Given the VERY short time frame of your trip, I would also suggest limiting your trip to Rome and Florence and leaving the Amalfi Coast and the south for a future trip. Have you allowed for the fact that you'll lose the first day in travel times and time zone changes, and the last day will be spend on the flight home? ¶ You might consider using open jaw flights, into Milan and then take a train to Florence to begin your trip. Spend a few days in Florence, take the Bus to Siena and spend one night and then train to Rome. Return back to the U.S. from Rome (of course that trip can also be done in the reverse direction). ¶ You might have a look at a copy of the "Italy" Guidebook, as it contains a LOT of information on sites to see, transportation, etc. Happy travels!

Posted by
1976 posts

Visit Florence and Rome on this trip and save Naples and the coast for the next trip (in warmer weather). Eight days isn't really enough time for these cities, but use your time wisely, do research, and you'll be able to see a lot.