Iceman

    > I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    > no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    > I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    > to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    > there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Venice doesn't take more than two full days, and many people are
satisfied with one full day. It's fascinating to see and experience,
and the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Church are among the highlights
of Italy, but beyond that and the Accademia Museum there's not much
else other than wandering along the canals. Florence and Rome are
much better choices to linger in.

Florence is worth a visit for the Uffizi Gallery alone, which has many
of the greatest treasures of Rennaisance art. A whirlwind tour of
Florence would take in the Uffizi, the Duomo, the Palazzo Pitti, the
Accademia gallery, and the Churches of Santa Croce and Santa Maria
Novella, taking three days.

Rome is so full of history and art that you could easily spend the
entire time there. St. Peter's and the Vatican Museums deserve a full
day, and you should also spend a full day exploring the remnants of
Ancient Rome: the Colosseum, Pantheon, and Forum. Then spend some
time exploring beyond the "sights", and you'll experience another
aspect of Rome - the streetlife, sights of great beauty coexisting
with everyday Roman life, cafes overlooking world-famous monuments,
and fascinating churches and ruins in many parts of the city.

Day 1 - Venice
Day 2 - Florence (Uffizi + Duomo)
Day 3 - Florence (Palazzo Pitti + gardens)
Day 4 - Florence (Accademia + churches)
Day 5 - Rome (Ancient sights)
Day 6 - Rome (Vatican Museum + St. Peter's)
Day 7 - Rome
Day 8 - Rome

Howard N . Lute

On 27 Dec 2003 15:44:37 -0800, (Iceman) wrote:

    >> I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    >> no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    >> I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    >> to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    >> there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    >> really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    >> perhaps one between Venice and Rome?
    >Venice doesn't take more than two full days, and many people are
    >satisfied with one full day. It's fascinating to see and experience,
    >and the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Church are among the highlights
    >of Italy, but beyond that and the Accademia Museum there's not much
    >else other than wandering along the canals. Florence and Rome are
    >much better choices to linger in.
    >Florence is worth a visit for the Uffizi Gallery alone, which has many
    >of the greatest treasures of Rennaisance art. A whirlwind tour of
    >Florence would take in the Uffizi, the Duomo, the Palazzo Pitti, the
    >Accademia gallery, and the Churches of Santa Croce and Santa Maria
    >Novella, taking three days.
    >Rome is so full of history and art that you could easily spend the
    >entire time there. St. Peter's and the Vatican Museums deserve a full
    >day, and you should also spend a full day exploring the remnants of
    >Ancient Rome: the Colosseum, Pantheon, and Forum. Then spend some
    >time exploring beyond the "sights", and you'll experience another
    >aspect of Rome - the streetlife, sights of great beauty coexisting
    >with everyday Roman life, cafes overlooking world-famous monuments,
    >and fascinating churches and ruins in many parts of the city.
    >Day 1 - Venice
    >Day 2 - Florence (Uffizi + Duomo)
    >Day 3 - Florence (Palazzo Pitti + gardens)
    >Day 4 - Florence (Accademia + churches)
    >Day 5 - Rome (Ancient sights)
    >Day 6 - Rome (Vatican Museum + St. Peter's)
    >Day 7 - Rome
    >Day 8 - Rome
I disagree completely, Venics is fascinating, beautiful and the most
unusual city in the world. 3 days is a minimum and you MUST see Burano
and Murano islands in the lagoon while you are there. Florence is
lovely but 2 days is plenty as many of the Uffizi exhibits are
fakes...copies of the real things that are elsewhere in Italy now.
Rome is a gem and needs the largess of your time no matter where else
you go.
H
Retired Teacher, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber!
LPFM Page: http://home.att.net/~optcamel/fmradio.htm

David Horne

Ksu93dlv <> wrote:

    > I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll
    > have no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from
    > the US). I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time
    > I don't want to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see
    > (though I know there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other
    > city we would really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding
    > a third city, perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Depends on your pace- this is argued about a lot here but it really
depends on people's tastes- so you want to think about your usual pacing
when you visit other places. In 10 days, _I'd_ be comfortable with this.

2 days Rome
2 days Florence including day trip to Pisa if really want
2 days Venice
last two days in Rome again

I did something similar to the above, using regular train services, but
you might want to consider spending more on the Eurostar services which
would save a bit of travel time, maybe. There also some fantastic day
trips from Rome- Tivoli, Cereveteri, etc.

Actually, given the speed and timetable of the express service, Pompeii
is day-trip-able from Rome. If you're dying to see a place like that,
and can take that kind of pace (leave at around 7am from Rome and get to
the site itself by 10am!)- then it's worth considering.

I like things fast paced- and for me the trips between cities are part
of the holiday, as I'm an enthusiast for any form of train travel.

David

David Horne

B Vaughan <> wrote:

    > Once again, I didn't see any sign of
    > public transport at the site of the tombs, and this site is also a bit
    > far from any town. However, if I had to choose one of the two sites to
    > visit, it would be Cerveteri.

Barbara, I honestly don't remember how we got there when we visited, but
it was definitely public transport, and I don't think it was that tricky
an issue as a day trip from Rome- I'm pretty sure we had to walk a
little bit though. A little web research (which is difficult for me to
do atm) will probably show something up- I think we just used the info.
in the Let's Go book, and that worked fine, and seemed to be accurate. I
do agree with you that it's an enchanting place. We visited in late
June, and it didn't seem to have that many visitors.

David

David Horne

David Horne <> wrote:

[]

Found this link-

http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/cerveteri.html

Now I remember, we took the metro, then a bus. They say it's a 25 minute
walk- I do remember that, and it's a country road IIRC.

David

Ian Phillips

Yes agree Rome and Venice are most sees.You could add Florence to your
list if you want to see the museums but if so order ticket before you go to
avoid line ups.

Ian


"Ksu93dlv" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a
question
> related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic
debates
> going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.
>
> I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like
I'll have
> no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from
the US).
> I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I
don't want
> to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I
know
> there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we
would
> really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third
city,
> perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Edwin Drood

(Ksu93dlv) wrote
I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like
I'll have
Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    > there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

I would agree with Jenn that one should not try to "see" a third city
in that time. If Rome and Venice are your favortite destinations,
consider booking an open-jaw ticket: US to Rome via somewhere, and
return Venice to US via somewhere. Take the night train Rome-Venice -
sleeping cars are quite comfortable, safe, and with friendly staff.
If you do, strongly consider taking the train first south for an hour
and a half or so, to catch the night train before it gets to Rome, so
that you have the extra sleeping time (The night train takes only 6
hours). The day express train is about 4 hours. IF you take a train
from Rome airport to the city, take the train to Travestere station
instead of the train to Termini. At Termini, you may walk for a
quarter mile before you get to a place where you can get a taxi. At
Trasterve, it's about 100 feet. If you are going to take a train to
Venice, you can get your ticket (and sleeping car reservation) at the
airport train station.

You say "we" when you talk of your trip. If this is a spouse,
significant other, or romantic interest, Venice is a place to enjoy
leisurely - you want to spend several days there. The best part of
the day in Venice is the early morning before the day trippers arrive,
or the evening, after they have left. Both Rome and Venice are places
to wander and eat. A lot of the reason for being there is to sample
the cafes, restaurants, and street ambience. It is wise not to plan
on too many sights to "see" in a day. As someone said, one could
spend months in Rome without seeing everything.

Laura M

(Ksu93dlv) wrote in message news:<>...
    > I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    > related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    > going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.
    >
    > I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    > no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    > I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    > to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    > there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

We went a year ago and had 12 days. Different from most, we did not
go to Rome. We flew into Milan and went to Lake Como, Venice,
Florence and Cinque Terra (Vernazza, specifically). Lake Como was
absolutely gorgeous, but I don't consider it a "must see". We
absolutely adored Venice. Florence was fantastic with the museums and
Cinque Terra was so unusual and beautiful. Very, very VERY small and
very quaint with lots of hiking trails. We had 5 days in Florence
which was too much. We didn't do Rome because we felt it needed more
time. Next time we'll go south and include Rome.

Have fun!

Giovanni Drogo

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, B Vaughan wrote:

    > Etruscan sites, including Tarquinia and Cerveteri. (At that time I

    > available on the google archive.) We made this trip by car, but I did
    > a quick check of public transport options.

I did both places with an organized tour (actually a "viaggio incontro"
by the Italian Touring Club, so this is not a "commercial" option) so I
cannot offer advice about doing it with public transport. May be the
Tourist Office in Rome can.

    > stop and didn't see one. There is a fairly good museum in the town,

Yes, I believe it's called Palazzo Vitelli, also the setting of the
museum is nice, there are several funerary monuments, and a
reconstruction of a painted tomb (actually with the "stripping" of the
original frescoes).

    > but at the archeological site, you can only look in to the tombs from
    > the outside through a plate glass wall. There are a limited number of
    > tombs that can even be observed this way.

I believe the tombs open vary during the year according to some shifts.

Just to make clear what they are, there is a flat hilltop with little
mounds (this is the burial site, the actual ancient city was on another
hill on the other side of a valley). The bulk of the tomb is
underground, so you have to climb a (straight) staircase down. The tomb
itself is sealed by glass windows to preserve the paintings. They are
lighted quite well, so this is a good compromise between visiting
opportunity and preservation.

    > Ceveteri is much more extensive and evocative, and you could easily
    > spend hours wandering around the site and entering tombs. There is
    > plenty of shade and a very peaceful air about the place. Most of the
    > tombs have no remaining art work to see,

Here instead the site is in flat woodland, and there are two main
varieties of tombs, mounds and "cube". The mounds are very big, and
mostly overground. Sometimes you have to climb up and then down, and
sometimes that's not very easy. There is at least one tomb underground
with a complex curved path. Except for this one and the only painted
one, usually there is natural light only. The setting of the place is
more "romantic" (Piranesi-style) but the tombs are bare (except for what
can be sculpted on the walls).


    > >Why not also Villa Adriana in Tivoli ? Here one can definitely make a

    > Yes, this would be another very nice trip. I thought of mentioning it
    > before, but I thought it might be a little complicated for a
    > non-Italian speaker to manage by public transport.

Given the closeness to Rome and Tivoli, that would be definitely easier
than other places. You should be able to get directions about bus lines
at the Rome Tourist Office (I got very detailed instructions when I got
there the first time, some 22 years ago) ... and they surely speak
English too.

    > spent the night in a little inn (called the Villa Adriana, I believe)
    > just outside the gate of the Villa Adriana. The inn had a very
    > nice-looking restaurant, but we had already eaten when we arrived, so
    > we didn't try it.

I was there one evening some 8 years ago (when we were participating to
the flight calibrations at the BeppoSAX operation centre), and it was
good, but definitely expensive at the time (we were on mission though).
I imagine even more expensive now.


    > >In my opinion Venice can't be done in a day unless using a night train.
    > >Florence can be reached easily
    > Actually, my husband and I have several times made day trips to Venice
    > from a similar distance (Le Marche) just to see specific art shows,

The distance is a bit less than from Rome ... but maybe you have to
change train and that "compensates". I agree that a day trip with a
specific goal can be done to visit an exhibition or a friend (from Milan
it's 3 hours, and I've sometimes done it to do both things). We have
also arranged sometimes day trips (when we had business meetings with
Russian astronomers) but from closer places.

I personally consider that spending 3 hours to get to one place, and 3
hours to come back it's a bit of a border case to consider a day trip
valid.

Reid

Following up to Ksu93dlv

    >I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    >related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    >going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.

"killthread" is much quicker than sarcasm, if you used it
instread of whinging.

    >I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    >no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    >I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    >to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    >there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    >really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    >perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Can't see any problem. Venice, Siena, Florence, whatever you
fancy. you didnt mention how you intend to get about in Italy
though.