Rome, Florence or Venice

united4ever

Spending seven days in the above three cities, so planning 2 nights in two cities and 3 nights in one city. But don't know which of the three to spend the longer three nights in. Anyone any advice on which city would be best to spend 3 nights in, or alternatively if we could make ashort trip somewhere off this route for one night. My wife and I are travelling by train throughout. Thanks

djl

hi

we went to venice and rome in 2005 i would say venice is well worth 3 nights its got things to see and the canals are something else as for rome there plenty to see for a few days. we spent 5 nights in each but that was a little to long for venice

hope this helps

Lemmy_Caution

It's between Venice and Rome I would say. I would just go for the Venice option, only because you might want to get a pass and travel out to the other islands, so it may well take a little longer to travel around the place.
All three are wonderful places.

trets77

All three are wonderful places

Really !!!

Florence is without doubt one of the worst places i have ever had the mis fortune to have inflicted on me.

.to use a cooking metaphor the crust looks, (viewed from the hills above) spectacular!!! with some truly beautiful buildings. however cut into this pie by getting into the place and you find the filling is the equivilent of pedigree chum.

Dirty, polluted , Traffic Choked, beggar ridden, massively overpriced, Crime infested , sweaty, crowded hell hole. all swimming on a river of corrupt authories.

highlights. some of the food and the journey away from the place.


Sienna is the citys great rival and a lovely place to vist that i really really enjoyed. .

saveapenny

I loved both Venice and Florence but if I had to choose one again it would be Venice. For one reason only I felt very unsafe in Florence like the previous poster said its a stunning but break through that outter surface and wonder off a few streets from the main tourist areas and its dirty and crime riden

brazilianwax

I adore Florence.

We spent a week there on our honeymoon (after 4 nights in Rome and before 3 nights in Milan).

My sister lived in Venice for a while and hated it. It really smells apparently.

brazilianwax

trets77 wrote:

Dirty, polluted , Traffic Choked, beggar ridden, massively overpriced, gang Crime infested , sweaty, crowded hell hole. all swimming on a river of corrupt authories.

A bit like London then!!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

LittleJo

Hi,
Florence seriously that bad?
Anybody else feel the same, before I waste my money going!!
JO

brazilianwax

LittleJo wrote:

Hi,
Florence seriously that bad?
Anybody else feel the same, before I waste my money going!!
JO

Jo -

Seriously - I didn't see any of what the other posters described and would go back to Florence in a heartbeat.

If anyone knew what London was really like there wouldn't be so many tourists, would there??!!

lemontart

Florence is a dump - full of pedlars and theives and dirty. I was there in November and you could not walk 10 yards with out some one trying to sell you something on the street. ok day visit for ulrezzi gallery but thats about it but defo watch your bags and wallets there awful and police do not really care either,.

Liz
xx

italiastar

saveapenny wrote:

I loved both Venice and Florence but if I had to choose one again it would be Venice. For one reason only I felt very unsafe in Florence like the previous poster said its a stunning but break through that outter surface and wonder off a few streets from the main tourist areas and its dirty and crime riden

Is it crime ridden or looks it? I was there last year and walked off the main streets into an Arabic quarter - I did not feel unsafe and it was the only place I could get a drink for my kids at a non rip-off price - I admit it didn't look like the posh places, but I certainly didn't feel unsafe - was I just being naive? or was it the fact that I was born and bred in Brixton?

Personally I'd go for Rome everytime, Venice is very nice, but a rip-off, full of Tourists, particularly loud Americans.