Please sign in to post.

which order?

I have a business meeting in Rome from July 17 to the 20th and will take my family along. We have only 2 weeks and thought we would do Venice first for 7 days and then Rome for 7. After reading other posts, I'm wondering if we should reverse the order and relax in Venice after the hustle/bustle of Rome. Thought we would do day trips from each location but have a base and not move around alot. Any thoughts?

Posted by
9110 posts

Rome doesn't have to be hustle and bustle, you can hide and relax there just as well. Order shouldn't really matter. Venice, for its size in often elbow-room only, especially during the day. The idea of day trips from Venice seems a bit odd. Venice is way out on the end of the stick with a finite eastern boundry. Day trips (the enroute portion anyway) would repeatedly cover much of the same ground. Maybe stay in Padua and make one of the day trips to Venice? In all honesty, I'm the president of the Anti-Venice League, but seven days there (or seven nights, even) would drive me up a tree since you can wear it out, easily, in a day and a half.

Posted by
13 posts

Too long 7 days in Venice, unless you take in Padua & Verona. Rome you could go to the sea & relax.

Posted by
32805 posts

Well Ed and I are at the opposite ends of the stick on this one (happy New Year, Ed). You can easily spend a daytrip or two in the Veneto - Vicenza, Padova (the Scrovengi Chapel amongst others), and Verona. But even for the mad Venice lover like me seven days would be pushing the boat out a little far. Florence? Tuscan hill towns? Urbino?

Posted by
11335 posts

I am in the pro-Venice league, so will offer a counterpoint. 7 days/nights allows you to become more of a local and enjoy the culture, instead of just seeing the highlights. Since you are a family group, rent an apartment so you have some space for downtime. Make an excursion in the morning, have lunch, enjoy the riposo, then a late afternoon activity or site, an appertivo, dinner after dark when it is quiet and cooler. You can take a full day to the islands of Murano, Burano and Torcello, another to Padua cruising the Brenta Canal. Just walking the Dorsoduro and seeing the Accademia, Dogana and Salute is a very full half day. Be sure you get out to the the Zattere! Piazza San Marco/the Basilica is a zoo in the morning, but by 4:00pm the day trippers are leaving and you can enjoy. Rick Steves has an excellent mutli-day itinerary for Venice. http://www.ricksteves.com/plan/destinations/italy/venice3.htm IMHO he even puts too much into each day of a 4 day stay. We were there for 4 nights in October and did not get to everything we wanted to because we so enjoyed just walking around. Take time to savor a coffee or a glass of wine, and just get lost (which you will!). Your kids will love the vaporettos. Riding the circle route around the city is fabulous fun. And don't miss the view from the tower at San Giorgio Maggiore. Better than the Campanile in Piazza San Marco. Or do 4 nights Venice and 3 in Umbria enroute to Rome, to break it up and see another place.

Posted by
11335 posts

Part 2 I agree with Ed that order does not matter. Do get an apartment in Rome where you can rest a portion of the day. Somewhere quiet where family can get out of the heat and the street. That will make Rome a better experience. I think a week in each of these two cities is very civilized. You will become a repeat customer at a bar or cafe that will recognize you, you will meet some Italians because you will be there long enough to interact, and you will have time to get off the beaten path.

Posted by
3313 posts

Venice would be the best place to start because it is more quiet and less chaotic to get you acclimated to Italy. (Just don't call Venice "Italy" in front of Venetians)

Posted by
951 posts

Team Venice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Totally do it after Rome because Venice is like a nice zanax after a panic/anxiety attack.. And Rome is the anxiety attack. I was there about a month ago and did Venice after Rome, and flew home from Venice. I had 3 nights in Venice and wished I had more so I could have explored the smaller surrounding cities like Murano, Burano, ETC.

Posted by
7737 posts

We've done both - Venice then Rome and Rome then Venice. They're both enjoyable. I would do whichever works out best for your schedule. And even though I absolutely love both Venice and Rome, I would suggest adding a destination (or two) for your two weeks. Perhaps Florence and Orvieto?

Posted by
81 posts

Thanks all. Would prefer to stay put in one spot and do day trips or overnight if not too costly. How about Rome as a base and train to Florence?

Posted by
11335 posts

Daytrip to Florence can be done, but tiring. 0805 Frecciargento arrives at 0928. 1810 return to Rome arrives at 1938. Given about 8 hours in the city, you will need to select your sights carefully, have a reservation for the Uffizi, for example. Or you might do well to take an escorted tour. Less time wasted if you are not trying to navigate and decide.

Posted by
282 posts

One thing to look at when deciding the order is flight arrival/departure times. Flights leaving Venice can be VERY early, which would make me lean towards doing Venice first and then Rome. Just a thought.