Hi my husband and I have recently cut Florence from our Italy itinerary giving us an extra few days to play with. We realized that as we are not super into art or architecture there are better places that suit us more. We love the outdoors, adventure, roman and nature. Hubby is also into history and castles-but would only visit one or 2 museums for this whole portion of trip.
We have about 8 nights for Italy in September or we could take about 11 if we added Croatia.
We definitely want to visit Rome (min 4nights) and Venice (1night). We are flying from Geneva after doing a shortened tour de mint Blanc hike and then heading to Salzburg or Vienna by train (night if possible)
Option 1. We would like to visit the coast somewhere in this portion of our trip so if we didn't visit Croatia we could possibly spend 3 nights in the amalfi coast-allowing husband to visit Pompeii which he would love to do. This would be much cheaper and easier as we wouldn't have to fly other than from Geneva. This would be 8 nights total and we could use the extra time in Austria.
Option 2 would be to visit Rome (4) and Venice (1) then fly to either split or Dubrovnik (5including island) and then stay plitvice (1) then fly to Austria from Zagreb possibly.
I just love the look of the lakes. So if we went to Croatia they would be the priority.
So my main question is should we include Croatia despite the fact it's a pain to get to (and expensive to fly) and makes the itinerary so much more complicated?? I feel it really suits our interest in the outdoors and adventure sports though.
Thanks in advance