Italy tour too much?

Jo,

While it might be feasible, that Itinerary would be far too "busy" for me. While the travel times between each location are relatively short, it's still necessary to allow time for getting from the station, checking in/out of Hotels, etc. As a result, you'd likely only have a day or so for touring in each location.

With a time frame of 12-days, I'd suggest limiting to four locations, which would provide a bit more leeway for travel times.

Happy travels!

Yes, way too much, you'll be exhausted before your tour even starts!

IMHO that's too rushed! Rather than trying to show them a taste of 6 places, I suggest you let them savor 3. The problem is that even though it sounds like the places are just 2 hours or so apart, it really takes about 1/2 day when you add everything up it takes to move place to place. You need to finish packing at place 1, check out, get to the train station ahead of the train, travel, go from train station to new hotel, check in (if room is ready), put stuff down and meet to start sightseeing. Its probably lunchtime by then so you eat lunch and the day really doesn't start until 1pm or later.

My suggestion would be Rome for 4 days, CT for 3 days, Florence for 3 days (including a daytrip to a hilltown), then Venice.

We're doing that too! Italy 12 nights and then cruising from Venice. It sounds like we have the same problems - want to see it all!!! Plus I want to pack light which means our cruise wear may be more casual than some.

This is the Rick Steves' forum! According to his books what you want to do can be done, in fact he doesn't recommend 4 nights in Rome! His "sightseeing priorities: 4 days: Florence, Venice
6 days, add: Rome
8 days, add: Cinque Terre
10 days, add: Civita and Siena"

You actually have days to spare!!! :-)

I'll be anxious to hear what you decide and how it goes. When are you traveling?
We are going in October and have 3 days in Rome (am contemplating taking a day trip to Orvieto), stopping in Naples en route to Sorrento for 2 nights, and 1 night in Paestum, then 1 night in Siena (RS says it can be seen in half a day and that it's a gem at night, 1 night in Florence leaving late afternoon for 3 nights in Venice.
Are Orvieto and Siena redundant? Should I cut one? Which?
That's the dilemma. Who do we listen to, RS or these forums???

While your proposed itinerary certainly can be done, you will spend a lot of time in transit between places. I like to linger a little longer in each place & have the opportunity to explore. There is so much to do in Rome & in 2 nights (which really translates into 1.5 days after transit time, checking in/out of hotel, etc.) you will barely scratch the surface. I would spend 4 days in Rome & do Orvieto as a day trip from Rome. I would also stay in Siena & do Florence as a day trip or vice versa. I personally feel that you should cut a few destinations and savour the others by lingering a little longer in each place.

Don't waste your precious vacation time sitting on a train. Spend as little time on the train as possible and as MUCH time as you can in a few destinations. You've seen it before, but your friends have not. Let them enjoy and experience Italy...not Italian Trains!

I did that on my first Italy trip. I wanted to see all in limited times, then I realized I spent so much time on trains and buses, not to mention checking in and out of hotels... and those time I spent in stations waiting for the bus/train.
At the end of the trip, I got very tired and needed post holiday-holiday, and actually got disappointed because I went that far and saw less that I expected to see in each place I visited.

I agree with Ken, although with only 12 days, you may want to limit yourself to 3 locations to let the newbies take it all in. There may be things that they want to see or experience, so allow them that time. Have you asked about their "must sees"?

Regardless of what the sentiment is..it is definately feasible. My only suggestion is that you would probably have enought time in Orvieto by staying one night (and adding the day onto Rome or Venice-with a side trip to Verona).

Richard, We have been to Verona but plan to side trip to Civita di Bagnoregio..thats why the 2 nights in Orvieto plus I just love the looks of "Casa Selita B&B" in Orvieto.. Thank you everyone for your help.

Sheron,
Please explain the rationale of all these "day trips" Going on the train and back again whether to Florence from Siena or Orvieto from Rome would be more time on the train and in terminals. You actually have less time in the location. The only luxury is that of leaving your luggage in a hotel. I want to get to a town and enjoy the evening strolling and eating and then stay the night there, get up in the am and take a morning stroll, see the Duomo, etc. and move on down the road. I am talking about these smaller hill towns that only have a half day of sights in them, not Rome or Venice.

p.s. I would never spend more than a day in Disneyland and yet I can't "see" it all.

Merrill, my rationale is that I would try to minimize changing hotels every 2 days. This is a waste of time in my opinion. I enjoyed seeing many of the smaller hill towns as day trips from my base in Siena while staying in a wonderful agriturismo which in itself was a fantastic experience. Packing, unpacking, schlepping luggage around every 2 days on & off trains & checking into/out of of a new hotel is tiring to me. You may not agree with my rationale but it's my two cents for whatever it's worth. Everyone has a different style of traveling which they're comfortable with. I simply would not be comfortable changing hotels that frequently.

p.s. I would never spend more than a day in Disneyland and yet I can't "see" it all.

There is something about that line that I absolutely love. When I travel, I usually leave a place knowing there are still things to be discovered and reasons to return. I have been to Disneyland multiple times, but there are still rides I have not tried. Yet on my last trip, I would not have wanted to give up one of my days skiing to do those rides. That so captures my feelings about traveling. Yes, there was a museum or a church in Florence I probably missed, but to see it I would have had to give up strolling in Venice..and that was unacceptable. Merrill, we are kindred spirits.

I agree with most of the others: going to so many places will have you at the train stations waiting for trains, and then being ON the trains, a LOT. Factoring in all that time will give you considerably less time in each locale than it appears. Personally, I'd rather spend more time in fewer cities to really drink it in and not feel rushed. It gives everyone a good reason to go back, to see the towns/cities missed this time. =-)

Imho this would be way too much moving around for me and our family. Would have to agree with Sheron that schlepping luggage around and checking in/out of hotels after 2 nights is not my idea of fun. We enjoy spending a week at an agriturismo in the countryside and doing our daytrips around the area. We love shopping at the local Co-op for groceries! Where else but in Italy would grocery shopping be fun! Even though R.S. says you can do this timewise, I would pick 3 out of the 6 and spend more time in each location. I think that would make it more memorable for all family members. Buon Viaggio!

Merrill says " We're doing that too! ", perhaps impling that he/she has yet to try this blitz style tour.

Always good to consider the source...................