Venice and/or Florence?

You know the story of the iceberg? Only the tip sticks up and 90 percent is under the water? Venice. If all you do is see the crowds in S Marco and pay through the nose for a dodgy gondola trip from there you too will join the crowd that doesn't want to return. Break away from the crowd and wander the alleys and bridges. Go into some of the churches. Get to Mericoli, the Gesueti, S Georgio, Zanipoli.... dozens more ..... that's where the art is. Don't let yourself be shortchanged....

Difficult decisions, I know - all of your possible destinations are wonderful. As an art history major, consider which locations have the art that you're most interested in. If you love Renaissance art, then you should spend more time (not just a day) in Florence. If ancient Roman art, then (obviously) more time in Rome. As an art history major, you probably already know that Venice is its own thing when it comes to art, in terms of the effect of the Renaissance on the Venetian artists. For art only (and I'm big into art, though I LOVE Venice), I'd choose time in Rome and Florence. Remind yourself that you WILL return! If you have artists in particular that you love, do some google searches (the best way, I've found) to see where their pieces are (then you can go to the individual museum websites for confirmation, because pieces do move around and go out on loan). For example, Raphael's "La Fornarina" is in the National Gallery in Rome, at the Palazzo Barbarini - not usually on most people's "must-see" lists, but you may want to put it on yours. (The Palazzo itself is also beautiful). Several of Artemisia Gentileschi's works are at the Pitti Palace (not very well signed, so make sure you know which rooms they're in; same for the Raphaels there; the Pitti is kind of a mess, organizationally). Make sure you know the locations of Caravaggio's works in the various churches in Rome - even better than seeing them in a museum!

To save time fly from Paris to Venice; by train it takes all of a long day. By flying you can save hours and possibly arrive early in the afternoon. Check flights; it's been several years since I flew Paris-Venice and I think it was Easyjet. Venice's main sights can be enjoyed in a day and a half (two nights). Stop in Florence for a day or two on your way to Rome. The train stops in Florence, so you can avoid returning for a daytrip from Rome. For Florence, if you know what you want to see and have your reservations in hand, two nights (one full day) will get you to the main sites. Then take the short train ride to Rome and stay there the remainder of your time, with a side-trip to Ostia Antica.

It's possible to do but I would stop in Florence on the way to Rome. Try to get an early train from Venice to Florence. Store your luggage at the train station and spend the day seeing Florence. You can either spend the night there and leave for Rome in the morning or leave for Rome late that night. This would save you some back tracking since you'll pass Florence on your way to Rome. The trip takes about 2 hours so if you leave at 8 you'll get to Florence by 10ish and have the whole day to explore. I've been to Venice and think 2 days is plenty (not counting arrival day). It's a nice city but not my personal favorite. As you say, everyone has their own opinions and you'll have to decide for yourself how many days you wish to spend there. With 2 days in Venice, one day in Florence and 4 days in Rome you'll be able to get a good feel for these cities and also be able to relax. Donna

Nah, you can fit it all in. The only logistic flaw I see is passing by Florence enroute to Rome and then back-tracking north again, only to return to Rome later in the day. I'm not a train person, but I'd bet that it's maybe an hour and a half each way. Add maybe another hour and a half to get from the hotel to the Rome station and back, plus witing for the train. The add a half hour getting back and forth to the Florence station. That's five hours of transit time - - which leaves you precious little time actually moving around in Florence. I'd change the routing to Paris->Venice->Florence->Rome. The 'Venice last' mantra in ludicrous. Venice is compact and mobbed - - there's no place to hide. Rome is full of out-of-the-way-spots - - just turn a corner and walk two blocks. Now, for how much time I think you might need. Bear I mind that I'm a Paris fan, detest Venice and Florence equally, and rank Rome as so-so. Nonetheless, I've been to each city a bunch of times, either on my own or herding friends. Also, I'm not a big cheerleader for art museums, but have walked every gallery in every big one of them more than once. You have an art background, which is taken into consideration. Assuming that you'll have a bit of time on the arrival day in each city to do a bit of looking around or soaking up ambiance: Paris needs four days plus what little is left of the Versailles day. This will get you the Louvre, d'Orsay, Cluny, Pompidou, Picasso, and one more. Not my damn cup of tea, but you'll still have time for a half-dozen of the other major spots. You'll have to start early and stay late, but you can do it. Venice needs a day. I've shown it to folks on a day trip from Padua. Florence needs a day. You can hit both museums and the cathedral and still wander most of the city. Rome needs five days. It's too strung out to do is less.

Please note that these are times needed to scurry around and see everything that I think might interest you. How much time you spend actually enjoying the other parts of the cities is so personal that I refuse to touch it. Pad where you wish.

oh my gosh. I love Venice. on one trip I stayed for ten days in venice and never got tired of the city. It is magical and fun. I usually plan one or two items per day, usually in the morning, then eat a nice lunch and I either shop or people watch in the afternoon. i also have gone to Murano and Burano which is definitely fun.

Definitely do-able, and you'll love them all. I agree that you should stop in Florence between Venice and Rome rather than backtracking later. I'd do two days there, but if not that, at least an overnight-- walking around Florence at night is lovely.

Look at a map of Italy and you will see why everyone suggests Florence in between Venice and Rome. "Some love Venice, some don't think it's worth the trip, apparently." Who possibly could say that? I'd cut one day from Paris and add it to Venice or Florence. It's about a 2 hour train Venice to Florence. Florence to Rome is a little over 1.5 hours. Generally when traveling from the states you arrive in the morning leaving a good part of the day to a light introduction to a city. Being an Art History Major you must see Florence and Venice. I hope your friends will appreciate it too. I find it best to try to mix days at museums with other activities. Have fun!

Both Venice and Florence need more than a day to really see them. If all you're doing is ticking things off a list, then yes, you can see them in one day. There is a lot more to both of these cities than churches and museums. Just wandering the streets and peeking into courtyards is something you won't want to miss. Both cities are large and in Venice the only way to get anywhere is by walking. This takes time and stamina as there are many bridges to climb. Don't short change these cities. I would take one day from Paris and add it to Italy. You can get really cheap flights in Europe so you might want to consider flying to Venice. If not, try to take an overnight train to save you a day. This will give you: 2-6 Paris
night train or flight next morning to Venice 7-9 Venice, late train to Florence(2 days) 10-11 florence (2 days) 12 train to Rome 12-15 Rome ( 3.5 days) 16 fly home.

Thanks so much, everyone! I didn't even think about just getting off in Florence when the train goes by it en route to Rome. Very, very good advice. Maybe we will pinch a day from Paris and add it to Italy...I need to go over all of this with my friend!

I'd echo what other have said. 1) consider flying Paris-Venice. It may be cheaper. As well as faster. Unfortunately when we went between Paris/Venice the rates weren't good. Or had inconvenient, long lay overs. But there was a cheap direct flight Brussels/Venice which gave us an excuse to see Brugge. 2) Stop in Florence between Venice/Rome rather than back track. I would personally give Venice and Florence more time. But after Paris they're my favorite places. If you're interested in gondolas. Viatours has a singing gondola tour available. I forgot the cost. They gather 4 or 6 gondolas, with a musician and singer on one. It was a highlight of our trip. But my understanding is it fills early. There's a similar tour where I understand they don't spend much time on the move seeing the city. This tour goes down the back canals, then back to the Grand canal and down it. To know my biases. My personal favorite. Paris, second Venice, 3rd Florence, 4th Rome. In that order. I've been to the Accademia and Uffizzi, but other than to see David again. I don't feel a need to go back. But I do want to go back to Florence. There' a lot of other reasons. When I get back to Rome, I'll likely go back to the Vatican Museums, but it won't be a reason to go back to Rome. The Louvre and Orsay call me. And Venice, I'd go back just to walk around and find a table and glass of wine. Have fun. You've got 4 great places there. Have fun