Please sign in to post.

Italy in Seven Days?

I am planning a quick trip in early March to southern Switzerland for a business conference and then taking 7 days to do a quick run around Italy. Would anyone have suggestions about how to see as much as possible in such a short time, and whether rail or auto would be the preferable way to do it?

Posted by
23266 posts

With seven days you have a couple choices -- spend a lot of time inside trains or cars looking out windows and checking in and out of a lot of hotels. You will see the outsides of a lot of buildings and insides of a lot of train stations. Not my idea of traveling. OR you can see a couple of area reasonably well. Without knowing exactly your Switzerland location or travel schedule, I would suggest Milan assuming you are passing through Milan on the way out of Switzerland. Then Florence and Rome. See and experience a couple of places very well and see the rest of Italy when you return. Because you will return.

Posted by
157 posts

I would say use rail and you can see:
Rome 2 days,
Florence & Siena 3 Days, &
Venice 2 days

We did a similar trip last March and had a great time.

Starting from Switzerland, you could actually do it in reverse.

Jim

Posted by
6 posts

Frank and Jim, thanx for the reply. I'll be conferencing in Ascona, southern Swizterland and the plan is to at least travel by rail to Milano and set up the itenerary from there. I just read some other entries here and get the definite feeling that this trip should concentrate on a few cities and reserve the rest for the next trip, hopefully with more time to spend.

Posted by
479 posts

I can verify what Ron said that March in the CT is pleasant. I was there the beginning of March '05. It was the only time on the entire trip that I took my coat off in the afternoon. If I had to guess I'd say it was in the mid to upper 50's that day. The wind was blowing from the south that day so it was warm. But I hear that the wind could blow from the north meaning that the colder air from the alps will be blowing.

Posted by
5 posts

We just returned from a one-week honeymoon in Italy and really enjoyed our trip. We focused on Venice, Florence/Tuscany and Cinque Terre. The trains were easy to use, between cities we took the high speed trains which were very comfortable and while in town we mostly walked by foot.

The other poster is right, just focus on a certain area and don't worry about seeing everything because you will return.

Posted by
479 posts

At the risk of repeating what others have said, I would pick 2 places and divide up your time or pick 3. If you pick 3, make sure they're no further than a 3-hour train ride apart or you will feel like you're on the train the entire trip.

Something VERY doable is Lake Como for 2 nights, Milan for 2 nights and Venice for 4 nights. Lake Como and Milan are so close together that they're more like 1a and 1b. Lake Como and the Cinque Terre are similar types of places (although they're NOT the same place!) so pick one or the other. If you go to Venice you'll spend a lot more time on the train. But, hey, it's Venice! And you really are close, all things considered.

Posted by
23266 posts

Ron has laid out a good alternative if you want to see some small cities and the country side. EXCEPT, I believe everyone should go to Rome once. Not for the art, marble, or buildings but for the sence of history. Walk the forum. While most of our forebears were living in mud huts and wearing animal skins, multi story buildings were being built with a high level of advance technology -- sewers, piped in fresh water, arms, etc. Just think where we might be if we had not had 500 years of the "dark ages."

Posted by
6 posts

Ron, you mention the weather in CT in March was pleasant. Could you be more specific?

Posted by
705 posts

Have to agree with all the above. I'd concentrate on 2 - 3 places. Venice is quite unique and should be on everyones list to visit at least once. I also loved Lake Como and there are so many lovely little towns around the lake to see. Just riding the ferry around is an experience in itself. Both are easy to get to by train. CT is lovely too. I visit Genoa each year for work and spend a couple of days along the CT once I have finished my business. I generally visit March/April and have always found the weather good. Low 20C (sorry can't convert to F anymore) and in 4 trips only 2 days of cold weather and rain. I'd stay up north and save Rome, Florence etc for another trip.

Posted by
712 posts

We just did Rome, Cinque Terra, and then Venice in late Sept. It was alot of train travel. Although we enjoyed all we did, I almost think we would have been better staying and concentraing around the Venice area which was our original plan. We were going to rent a car and see Lake Guarda and the Dolomites and Venice. My husband had never been to Italy and everyone said we should do Rome for him. It was about a 5 1/2 hour ride from Rome to the Cinque Terra region because of train delays. From the Cinque Terra the engine of our train broke down in a small town and we missed all our planned connections and landed up taking local trains with lots of stop and changing 5 times before getting to Venice. It landed up taking us 8 1/2 hours of train hopping with our suitcases. We were suppose to be on the Eurostar from Bologna to Vencie. We are saving Tuscany for another trip and plan to rent a villa for a week. My husband is a history buff and was glad we did Rome and he loved hiking the Cinque Terra. I always love Venice.

Posted by
6 posts

I'm beginning to get a sense of what you all are suggesting. Make Italy a two or three time trip, concentrate on a little, save the rest for the next trip, and perhaps one after that. So I'm going to suggest to my better half that we stay in northern Italy this time. What are your real opinions about driving, with four people in our group. Let's say I use Milano as my base, going to CT, Florence, Siena, and back to Milano. Would a train to the CT, then drive the rest be a smart move?

Posted by
12 posts

I would spend enough time in Milan to get on the next train. You can see the Duomo that took 400 years to build and the overrated Last Supper. Thats it. The rail system is awesome and first class is well worth the money. Florence seemed to be the best for sight seeing. Art, shopping, food and wine all were the best quality and value. Everything close to the train station. Taxis are 7-10 euro to everything. Don't be afraid to stay on the otherside of the Arno river. Better deals on hotels there. We trained from Rome-Assisi-Florence- Cinque Terre-Milano all in first class except for Flo-Cinque. Total cost was around e200,00.

Posted by
3 posts

I would not recommend driving into the center of Florence. Traffic is heavy and confusing. If by a wrong turn you find yourself in the old section you will be ticketed.