Florence vs. Rome

One word among many reasons: David.

I was in Rome last fall but haven't been to Florence in close to 10 years so take this with a grain of salt, but my opinion:

I prefer Rome but think you should spend a couple days in Florence to see for yourself. David, other pieces of Renaissance art, and the duomo/baptistery doors are well worth it. Florence is more straight-up pretty and charming than Rome in my memory. Rome is more exciting and urban. I prefer the layers of history in Rome while Florence obviously doesn't have nearly as much ancient stuff. It's more purely (not 100%) Renaissance era which is great but personally I like the push-and-pull of different eras you get in Rome. It's a personality and opinion call which is "better" and really you can't go wrong.

In Florence you can find a day tour into Tuscan wine country which is reason enough for me, though!

My experience is Florence in 2010 (4 nights/hotel) and 2015 (5 nights/apartment), and Rome in 2010 (2 nights/hotel) and 2017 (6 nights/apartment).

I am glad I don't really have to pick between the two. Florence--especially in 2015--was wonderful in that everything is walkable, and it almost seems like a small town. Very focused on Renaissance history and art. Felt a little touristy. Picturesque & charming.

But we just got back from Rome. You have to work to get Rome. You get your maps, buy your bus passes, and integrate your life with normal Romans living their lives in order to fully appreciate this place. We were there earlier this month, and it didn't seem that touristy at all, except at the usual culprits like Spanish Steps and Trevi Fountain, which we saw for a few minutes, then moved on.

While there was tons to do and see within walking distance of our apartment at Campo de' Fiori, we got a much better perspective by taking advantage of the buses and Metro to span the city & see the 'layers of history', as the above poster says. We viewed artifacts from the early Iron Age, 1000 B.C., at a museum within the Baths of Diocletian, which is right next to the Roma Termini train station. People walking right by like it's a petrol station! Then you take the bus up north of Porta Pia to a nondescript-from-the-outside church of St. Costanza, where there was beautiful 4th century mosaic. And not far from there is Villa Torlonia, with the somewhat-dilapidated wartime home of Mussolini. Simply amazing, all off the tourist radar.

And...I think the food in Rome has Florence beat, although I think that's saying a lot as Firenze has great food, street food in particular. But to my way of thinking there is more variety in Italian cuisines in Rome. Traditional Roman fare is wonderful, but we also sampled Sicilian as well as Puglian dishes--fantastic. Also, I really dug having my early morning caffe at a little tabacchi shop bar. By the second day the barrister nodded to me, knowing what I wanted. No fanfare, just doing business. Loved it!

"what is so different between the two"

For starters:

The tourist area of Florence is compact and very dominated by tourism. The tourist area of Rome is a bit larger, and has many more locals mixed in with the tourists.

Sightseeing in Florence is dominated by Renaissance art. Roman sightseeing is dominated by ancient Roman sights like the Colosseum, and Baroque art. Obviously, there's other things to see in both places.

The two cities just feel completely different. Whether you will like Florence is not at all related to whether you liked Rome (similar to the way you feel about New York does not in any way determine how you will feel about New Orleans).

So, read about Florence and watch videos about it (Rick's are here - scroll down and click "Italy": https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show). If it draws you, go; if it does not, use your Italy time elsewhere. There is no requirement that you go to Florence - or anywhere else - no matter how many people tell you it's a "must see."

We first visited Italy in 2006 and felt like we should hit the big three...Rome, Venice and Florence but we were not particularly excited about Florence since we are not big art people. After returning home and processing the trip we both realized that Florence was our favorite, much to our surprise!!! There is so much history, as much art as you can absorb and the sense of just being. This past September we spent four weeks in Italy and rented an apartment in Florence for a week!!! We also spent five days in Rome but skipped Venice completely this trip. My advice would be to go to Florence to just get a taste of the city. Only after that can you make an educated decision as to whether you want to return.

One could write a novel about the differences but probably the best thing to do is a little background reading? While both cities have ancient Roman roots, vestiges of the Republican and imperial eras still extant in Rome are no longer evident in Florence. She is largely about the Renaissance, of Medici influence and wealth, the rise of civic humanism as applied to education, literature, philosophy and civic responsibility, all of this extending to her marvelous art and architecture.

She was important enough to have briefly (1865 - 1870) been the capital of Italy after unification, and the Florentine dialect of Tuscan to have become the national language.

It is a more compact city than Rome, with more pedestrianized areas and overall has a little more cultured feel than Rome. That's not to disparage Rome in the least as I love both cities precisely because they're not the same!

Oh, and we ate and drank very well there. Enough reason to go? :O)

To me the difference between the two boils down to this. Except for the Vatican/Sistine Chapel, Rome is all about the ancient world, the iconic 'Roman ruins', etc. Florence is all about the Renaissance - the city itself, the buildings, the art (which is everywhere). Both are wonderful to visit but, for myself as a lover of art and beauty, I can't imagine going to Italy and not going to Florence.

Roma is much more Renaissnce and Baroque than the Vatican and a few churches! Most of the fountains, the larger streets connecting them, the artwork - everywhere!

Beautiful cities, both. For me, Roma hands down, but a couple of nights in Firenze may give you a chance to know the city better. Well-situated for daytrips if you need them,)

For me it's Rome as well. A treasure trove of Baroque architecture and interior decoration. A few years ago I spent some ten days in the city with a busy programme. Without anything antique Roman, apart from walking the Via Appia (don't do it in June!).

I loved reading your experiences, thank you all very much. If anyone else reads the post, please I'd love to read your view, too. After reading, I think we should definitely go there.

Here's a non sightseeing point of view. When the weather's nice, Rome is all about enjoying the experience of being in Rome. It's hedonistic. Have a drink, do some people watching. Eat dinner in an alleyway, do some people watching. There's a fair amount of new excitement in restaurants, shopping and art of the non-museum kind in Rome. Plus, if you understand any Italian, Romans are funny. Sort of what New Yorkers were like when the city had more natives walking around. They wise crack, they have a great accent. Florence doesn't have that outdoor hedonism thing. It's more serious, more overrun by the tourist trade. You'll hear more English in Florence. It's smaller and doesn't have the mishmash of cultures and the energy and sometimes chaos of Rome.

Lulu,

I, too, am kind of torn between the two cities even though they are very-very different in character. I have about 8 days total in Florence and only three in Rome, but I feel I could go back to either for weeks and still only scratch the surface,

My pitch for Florence:

The birthplace of the renaissance. I'm not an "art person" either but I was blown away by the art in Florence. If you go, definitely get escorted tours of the Uffizi and the Accademia - you'll likely get an art academic for a tour guide and learning the story behind the art will help bring it to life. BTW - while I absolutely loved Michelangelo's David, I was even more moved by his "Prisoner" sculptures at the Accademia.

While the Duomo (Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore) and it's story is definitely impressive, you must head to its basement. There's the foundation of an even older church!

Pisa and Lucca can easily be done on your own via train in one day. Do Pisa as early in the morning as you can (to beat the incessant tourist coach crowds (the worst I had experienced in Italy) then head to Lucca for the remainder of the day.

Tuscany! Florence is the capitol of the region and being one of the "Big Three" it has a great selection of guided tours of the countryside. We took a small group tour of Chianti and it was the highlight of our 2 week Italy trip. If you don't want to go the guided tour route, several hill towns are reachable via train and/or bus.

Wow, these are great posts and suggestions.

I think the comment that Florence was the birthplace of the Renaissance pretty much encapsulates the appeal. A lot of it is the art, for sure. The Uffizi is really spectacular, a much better quality experience than the Vatican Museums because they limit the number of people the let in. The Academia is a much smaller commitment. Personally I thought the Duomo sights were especially great. Based upon your interests you really could be lots of different places in Italy, and many of those places would be a lot less crowded with other tourists than Florence. I was in Rome and Florence (also Sienna and Orvieto) for the fourth time this past October/November. I advise trying to go shoulder season, not high season because even when I was there it was quite busy. Also, the shopping in Florence is quite good as far as I can tell. I was not there to shop but leather goods are really popular, there are lots of street vendors with seemingly good quality merchandise, etc.

Since Florence is where I was born and raised, I may have a bias.
But biases aside, you have been to Rome and Venice before, so now you need to try Florence, then decide what you like for yourself. Forget what anybody else thinks.

Florence itself deserves at least 3 nights (that is two full days). However, Florence is also a great base to visit other places in Tuscany, since Florence is Tuscany's capital city and its transportation hub. If you want to take day trips from Florence to other Tuscan destinations (Siena, San Gimignano, Pisa, Lucca, Arezzo, Pistoia, etc.) add one night for every day trip you want to take.

Once you have done that, then you can decide what you like best for yourself. De gustibus non disputandum est.

Go to Florence! I understand your dilemma, because my DH always wants to return to the last place we visited, too. We recently spent 10 nights in Florence and never ran out of things to do. It is a very walkable city with lots to explore. When you are in Florence, you can just feel the history in the stones. Plus, Florence is situated to take easy day trips. You will love it!

I am actually unsure of the number of times I've been to Florence........

This past December we wanted to visit the Christmas markets in Switzerland and Germany. We did and had such an incredible time. But guess where we spent the first four nights of our trip? Florence. We flew into Rome and took the train to Florence before training up to Switzerland and Germany. Why? Because it's Florence. Just go. Once you're there you will understand.

They are so close go to both! Two nights in Florence is enough if you are not going outside of the city. That way you have a taste, and can go back again, say Florence Bologna and Venice....Enjoy!