We are flying in to Venice and flying out of Rome at the end of September, 2018. We actually have 11 days but our son leaves on the 9th day in the evening so we want to see the most essential places during the first 9 days. We are torn because we want to see all the major places like Cinque Terra, Milan, Venice, Lake Cuomo, etc. but we know we cannot see it all. And we know we will plan a separate trip to go back and explore the south of Italy. I think we are going to do Venice for 2 nights, 2 in/near Cinque Terra, Florence for 3 nights, Rome for 2 nights. Is that too much? We want to have a well balanced trip of good food, some hiking and museums, a little bit of everything. So many wonderful choices, so hard to choose. Would love some input. TIA!
Posted by
Folsom, California
542 posts
That itinerary seems reasonable, but a bit short in Rome.
You will have good food no matter where you go. I might suggest Lucca instead of Cinque Terra, or just go to CT for the day and stay in Lucca. We did that and were glad we did.
Posted by
Edmonds, WA 🌨 ☂
12034 posts
Look at the 'itinerary' for this tour. It will give you an idea of what is reasonable, and do not forget the tour has a guide who has everything planned and a dedicated bus to transport everyone.
https://www.ricksteves.com/tours/italy/venice-florence-rome-2018
You should be able to answer your question " Is that too much"? yourself
Posted by
Loveland, CO
117 posts
I second rizell's recommendation for "Lucca instead of Cinque Terra, or just go to CT for the day and stay in Lucca." In fact, a day trip from Lucca to Tellarro and Lerici is even better.
Posted by
New York, NY, USA
11294 posts
First, accept, right now, that you will see just a fraction, of a sliver, of a portion, of "the most essential places" in northern Italy if you only have 9 days. You will simply have to return, as so many of us do.
Second, what constitutes the "most essential places" will vary with each person, and you will only know what they are for YOU after you've seen them. For instance, for me, Milan was an essential place, despite being told that I should spend time elsewhere. Once I got there, I liked it, but I saw what people meant. Lake Como is large and oddly shaped, so you have to pick which part you want to see. I saw Varenna (very nice) and Bellagio (didn't care for it). And despite 7 trips to various parts of Italy since 1989, I've never been to the Cinque Terre (no interest - or rather, other places interest me more with my limited time). Of course, everyone has different reactions. There's a thread here asking "should I spend more time in Florence or Venice," and the answers are split. Some love both, some love one and dislike the other, and some prefer other places in Italy altogether.
Flying into Venice and flying out of Rome gives you a great start. With just 9 days, I'd just focus on Venice, Florence, and Rome (they're called The Big Three for a reason). Believe me, you won't run out of ways to fill those days! If you do want to go to the Cinque Terre, you would go after Florence and before Rome for better train connections.
Since you're landing in Venice from the US, your first day is likely to be a jet-lagged haze. So, I'd want at last one more day there, just for that reason.
Posted by
8451 posts
We have been to Italy several times and my favorite cites are still Rome, Florence and Venice.
If you want to see Milan, Lake Cuomo and Cinque Terre, I suggest doing that on a separate trip.
Two nights in Rome is no way to see the city. You need five or six nights there.
Posted by
Washington DC
28436 posts
I agree with Harold that as your first stop Venice needs a minimum of 3 nights, because your first (partial) day may well find you in a zombified state struggling merely to stay awake. As a matter of fact, I think 4 nights would be a lot better. The risk with short trips to Venice is that you may not like the city much, because you'll end up in lock-step with thousands of other tourists, marching fromnthe train station to tne Rialto Bridge to San Marco. Give yourself enough time to get lost along the back canals. Maybe take a vaporetto out to Burano.
Posted by
OP
3 posts
Thank you everyone for your input. I am finalizing and reworking the details to make sure to see the big cities. We are sticking to 3 nights in Venice, 2 nights in Florence, 2 nights in Tuscany, and 3 nights in Rome. This is 10 nights. We fly out the morning of the 11th day. Very excited for our trip as it is our first and your input has helped us decide not to spread ourselves too thin. Will forego Cinque Terra and smaller towns in the north for this trip, but we are all such foodies and cannot pass up going to Tuscany and visit wineries and maybe a stop at an agriturismo. One last question, can't decide between Sienna or Montepulciano for those two nights in Tuscany. All that we read makes both places sound ideal. One a little more rustic than the other. What do you all think? We hope to get a driver so we can enjoy our visits.
TIA,
LTG
Posted by
Forest Grove, OR
11834 posts
If your choices are Siena or Montepulciano, I would stay in Montepulciano. More identifiable as a classic Tuscan hill town in wine country. Don’t be afraid to drive yourselves, just don’t drink except at dinner when you are parked for the night. FYI doing wine touring on your own is a challenge so consider a tour for your one day to accomplish that.
Posted by
OP
3 posts
Is there a better place to stay in Tuscany? A better choice than Siena or Montepulciano?