itinerary and book

7 cities in 11 days? "Trying to fit too much in one trip" is an understatement. With 11 days, pick 3 cities and no more. Remember, each time you change cities you lose up to 1/2 day: pack, check out of hotel, get from the hotel to the train station, wait for the train, train ride, get from train station to hotel, check in, unpack ... I would stick to the classice of Venice, Florence and Rome. Fly into Venice (great place to get over jetlag) and out of Rome.

Yes, there's no point to having only one jet-lagged day in Munich. Skip it on this trip, and just see Italy (you're still running around too much for my taste, but at least you have a chance of enjoying the trip instead of making it an endurance test). Venice, Florence, Rome, Pompeii, Sorrento, and Positano are not only a large number of places for a short trip. The first three are also very loaded with history and therefore very dense, so it's easy to become overwhelmed. Do you know about Stendahl Syndrome? It's no accident that his problem occurred in Florence; it could just as easily have occurred in Venice or Rome. As for the books, Rick updates his Italy guide every year, so you definitely want to buy the 2014 edition when it is available. Whether you also want to buy a 2013 edition to help you plan is up to you. How old is the one you have?

I agree. Way way way too much. 11 days is enough for 3 cities at the most as long as they're in the same country. You should leave Munich for another trip and concentrate on Italy. I don't think you need the newer books if you have one that just a few years old. Donna

I am one who often covers a lot of ground on trips, but I drive and do not mind roadtrips, but with a schedule like this you will probably not enjoy any of it. I would agree with the above post and just do Italy. Are you driving or using trains for the whole trip? If you want a bit of variety I would do Venice, Rome and Tuscany (a village) and take a day trip to Florence, otherwise all you will have are cities. Or, you could forget Florence and go to the the AC (which I would prefer if it were my trip)

You will see a lot of train stations and the inside of trains with that schedule. I agree with the others that suggest skipping Munich. What's the point to be there for such a short time, then take a long train trip to your next destination? With only 9 nights in Europe I would stick with just Italy. Why go to Rome twice on such a tight schedule? You could fly into Venice and spend 2 nights. Train to Florence and spend 2 nights. Train to Sorrento and spend 2 nights. Train to Rome for 3 nights. Fly home. Or even better, skip Sorrento for lack of time. Spend 3 nights each in Venice, Florence and Rome. Two nights in a place is only one full day. Don't rush around so much that it all becomes a blur and you don't remember anything. You can wait for a 2014 book, but do buy a guidebook for Italy.

You have chosen too many great cities to visit on such a short time frame. Your first day and your last day will be wasted respectively getting over jet lag and getting to the airport. Have you considered flying into Venice and staying 2 nights? Then take a train to Florence for 3 nights. A 1 hr. bus ride to Siena makes a great day trip from Florence. Take the train from Florence to Rome and spend the balance of your time there. Naples, Pompeii and the Amalfi Coast might be best left for another trip because you'll be back.
And Rome FCO is the best airport to fly back to the States from.

I am another one who thinks this is far too much, it appears to me to be just a drive by. Suggest you fly into one city and home from another just as others have said, think you are best with just Venice, Florence and Rome for the most.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I knew it was to much, but sometimes it helps to hear it. Tony

I think most of us want to cram in as much as we can, but realistically that doesn't make for a very good trip. Like you said, sometimes we just need to have that confirmed by others. Have a great trip!!