My husband & I are going to Italy for two weeks this September/early October. Is the following too ambitious of an itinerary? Too much train travel? Should I cut out Venice or rearrange things? Our schedule is:
Arrive in Milan (1 night), train to Venice (2 nights), train to Cinque Terre (3 nights), train to Florence (3 nights), drive to another part of Tuscany (3 nights), train to Rome for 2 nights then home. Thanks in advance for your kind advice.
Posted by
Northborough, MA
636 posts
I would drop Milan and steal some nights from Florence/Tuscany and give them to Venice and Rome.
Posted by
Atlanta
800 posts
Dominique - this seems quick but not too rushed. The only place I haven't been is Cinque Terre but from other postings on this board it does seem like 3 nights would be okay. My personal preference would be to take a night away from Florence and add it to Rome, but I just really liked Rome better than Florence.
Posted by
Atlanta
800 posts
Leslie posted at the same time I did so I want to respond to "dropping Milan". I assume you put that in because that is your arrival city. Though Milan is not on the top of most lists, we flew there for the beginning of our Italy trip last summer. We were only there for one night as well. We had a nice lunch, saw the Duomo & climbed to the top (magnificent!), shopped and had a relatively early dinner. We awoke very refreshed, had time for another quick stroll around the Duomo area and left on a plane to Palermo. I don't regret at all that we stopped there. I don't really like the idea of arriving in Europe and trying to make plane or train connections. Anyway - just helping to rationalize the 1 night in Milan decision.
Posted by
OP
San Rafael, CA, USA
8 posts
Thanks so far for the comments. We are arriving in Milan in the early evening PMish which is why we are staying one night there. I'm just wondering if we are criss crossing too much by going to Venice, and then all the way to Cinque Terre.
Posted by
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
122 posts
I don't think the criss-crossing will be a problem, but whatever you do, keep CT on your itinerary. Just came back from three nights there and it is one of the most beautiful, pittoresque and interesting places we have ever visited.
Posted by
Seattle, WA, USA
7737 posts
I think you're criss-crossing too much. If you change the order to Milan/CT then Venice, then Florence/Tuscany then Rome you won't be traveling as much. It's hard to make a suggestion as to the amount of time in each city because I don't what you enjoy doing. But for my taste, you're spending too much time in Florence/Tuscany (6 nights) and too little in Venice and Rome (4 nights total).
The itinerary I would enjoy with those cities is this:
Milan 1 nt
CT 2 nts
Venice 3 nts
Florence 3 nts (with a daytrip to another part of Tuscany)
Rome 4 nts
Posted by
Dallas, TX
5 posts
I agree with Michael on the itinerary. If you find you really want to see more hill towns, you could always decide to take a day trip from Rome to Orvieto and Civita.
Posted by
Somerville, MA
650 posts
I'm torn here. Your trip is not too ambitious by any stretch and most likely a fine plan. It would be ideal to spend 3 nights in Rome, but I'm not sure at what expense. My top candidate to go would be Venice, but that would leave you with 1 extra day and in my opinion, none of these places warrant a 4-night stay (I get bored fast though).
Posted by
Northborough, MA
636 posts
I guess this begs the question: Could you fly into Venice instead of Milan?
Posted by
Denver, CO, USA
135 posts
Bag Milan, if you can- otherwise:
Milan (1N) train to CT (3N) train to Venice (2N) train to Firenze (3N) train to Siena (2N) train to Roma (3N); advantages- no criss crossing, no car rental (saves time renting/dropping off); Siena is a "fave" hill town for most; Rome is worth an extra day; IF you could change and fly into Venezia (which would be my suggestion) I'd do Venezia (3N) CT (3N) Firenze (3N) Siena (2N) Roma (3N); buon viaggio.