Italy Vacation - Rome & Venice, skip Florence?

You will receive a variety of responses pro and cons. Florence is the heart and soul of the Renaissance and you do not see that as extensively as Rome. The sights of Rome are more of ancient Rome. It is not an equal comparison. I always think of Florence as a more manageable version of Rome in scale. Florence is smaller and more compact. It has to be your choice as there is no correct decision. If time was very limited I might (not positive) drop Rome in favor of Florence. Tough choice.

Well... if you are still in the planning stage you haven't bought your airfare yet, have you? Is there a chance you could add a few more days to your trip? Even if Florence doesn't float your boat, there is plenty of other places in Tuscany or Umbria that might. There is certainly far more to Italy than Rome and Venice. A smaller city like Siena or Assisi would give you an entirely different experience. Or head a bit south to the Amalfi Coast, check out the ruins of Pompeii and the Isle of Capri. Or perhaps a few days of rest and relaxation at one of the Italian Lakes.

Personally, in several trips to Italy, we've been to Venice (twice) and Rome (once) and still have Florence on our wish list. You may have other priorities, and hopefully you'll have opportunities to return to Italy if you don't see everything you want on this trip.

I've always been of the opinion that if you need to be convinced to visit a location that you've already decided against then you shouldn't visit it.

I would just stick to what you have planned and save Florence for another time, if at all. There is no need to visit if it's not something you're truly interested in and to take time away from two cities that you are interested in makes no sense.

Donna

My brother and sister in law just got back from their fourth trip to Italy in recent years (my SIL used to summer in Sicily with family every year before the age of 12). This past trip was their first time to Florence. They never though they would like it, and the only reason they even bothered on this trip was to visit a cousin. They are converts - just loved it, and wished they could have stayed longer. My first trip to Italy will be in just under four weeks, and we have two nights in Florence. Can't wait! Have a great trip, either way.

Its your vacation, do what you want. I actually like the idea of spending more time with fewer places. You can always hit Florence the next time around.

If I had 8 or 9 days, I would visit only two cities - every time you change city half a day is lost and you spend time and money travelling. You can choose any couple of cities - there are pro and cons to every place - but a more relaxed trip is often more enjoyable than trying to see everything.

It is your choice. Everyone is different. In my family our least favorite city was Venice. Happy we went but we have returned several more times to florence and Rome and not Venice. It is unique but it just wasn't our favorite.

I agree with those who say "it's your trip - do what you want." And "in 9 nights you can't see everything, so less is more." And "there are no 'must sees'; only what you, personally, must see."

I'll add my personal experience. My first trip to Italy was Milan, Venice, and Florence (with side trips to Pisa, Lucca, and Siena). I had no desire to go to Rome at that time, and didn't. Many were scandalized - "how can you go to Italy and not see Rome?" But on that first trip, I caught the Italy bug, and I got the desire to see Rome, and so on my second trip, I did. I loved it, and have been back several times. Who knows how I would have felt about Rome if I went on that first trip, only out of a sense of obligation? Would it have colored my whole appreciation of Italy, a country I love and have now been to seven times? It can't be known, but I'm glad I did it the way I did.

All that said, if you want to see Renaissance art, Florence is the place; Rome and Venice have lots of other great things, but not so much of that. If you have a few specific sights in mind, you can do a "surgical strike," seeing those parts of Florence as a long day or single overnight between Rome and Venice.

Do you like Renaissance art, or is it just "meh" to you? Rome is known for its ancient and Baroque architecture, Venice for its Gothic/Moorish architecture. With regard to fine art, both cities have Renaissance art in their museums.

As others have said, Florence is the epicenter of Renaissance art and architecture. A few famous buildings there are medieval, like the Palazzo Vecchio and the Ponte Vecchio, as well as Dante's house, but for the most part if you want Renaissance, you go to Florence.

We did two extended trips to Italy, a total of 7 weeks, without seeing Firenze. We lived here for almost two years before we went there. Do we love it? Yes. Do I wish we'd gone there sooner? No, because I wasn't ready to take on her museums. I think Rome and Venice offer more variety for a first visit, a broader spectrum if you will. You will easily fill 4 full days in Rome and 4 full days in Venice, and perhaps leave Italy feeling like you know a little about those two cities for your (inevitable) next trip. If you can make your trip 3 nights longer, add Firenze.

Rome has many ancient and Baroque sights, but you can find Renaissance art there, too. Nearly all the great Renaissance artists worked in Rome at some point.

I think Italy shines in the smaller towns and I don't see that featured in your plan. If it were me, I would pick one of those three for about three nights and spend the remaining time in a smaller town with interesting day trip options. Venice/Verona; Florence/Lucca; Rome/Orvieto would be my candidates.

For example, I just got back from 3 nights in Florence and 7 nights in Lucca. I had been to both before. Lucca was a great location for day trips to places like Pisa, Cinque Terre and the Garfagnana region. We had family with us who had never been to Italy and I felt like this was a great introduction with plenty of time to savor.

Thank you for all the responses. It sure gives me a lot to think about. I haven't finalized or booked anything yet. Hoping to do so by mid October so I'll be doing lots of research and asking a lot of questions before then. I'm leaning towards keeping Florence in the mix as I'm a huge fan of beautiful art, Renaissance or any other for that matter. I am planning on doing a day trip to Sienna from Florence, if we end up going that route. So its likely 5 nights Rome, 3 Florence with a day trip to Sienna and 3 Venice. Thanks again.

Diana: I like your final itinerary and feel its a good balance of time in each place. Rome has so much to offer but then its also a big city and I can find that exciting and also exhausting. I'm always happy to then leave and so smaller. Since you love art, Florence would be a must. Academia, Bargello, Duomo, Bapistry, Uffizi, etc. Plus, adding a hilltown will give you a good mix of big and small. Then ending in Venice is great since you can explore, get lost and not have to worry about all those cars and scooters. Its your trip and you could always adjust once you are there. If you don't like a place then take a day trip somewhere else. Sick of venice head to Padua for example. You also can't do it all your first time to Italy.

If it were my trip:
Venice: 3 nights (with day trip to Murano and Burano)
Florence: 4 nights (with one or two day trips to Siena, to Pisa+Lucca or somewhere else, like Chianti or other Tuscan villages)
Rome: 4 nights (3 full days devoted to Rome, or maybe even squeeze in a day trip to Orvieto if you don't care much about Ancient Rome or Baroque art)

In you're a huge fan of Renaissance art, Florence is a MUST. I'm very glad you added it to your plan 'cause you will love it!