ok here's our plan Arrive in Rome at 11:18 AM, take train to Termini, then on to Florence where we will stay 3 nights. On the morning of the 4th day, take train back to Rome where we will stay 4 nights.
Is this long enough in each city? Also, should I buy Eurostar tickets once we get there.
Information, information please! If you just have a week, and want to see Rome and Florence, it's an OK trip. If, however, you have some longer (free) time in Italy and this is just part of that, you're probably moving too fast.
On the Eurostar tickets, normally I'm in the "no" camp, preferring for myself to keep things simple, and just go to the station and hop the first train. In your case, however, if you're on a tight schedule like this, you should probably maximize the little time you have: yes, you should take the Eurostar; and if you can actually manage to have the tickets in your paws before you ever set foot in Italy, that's even better.
A good choice would be to spend the whole time in Rome. Perhaps, a day trip to Orvieto, or Ostia Antica or Tivoli could be incorporated into your travel plan.
Peter
Posts: 1364 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
Bill this is the only time we have (7 nights). We want to see more than 1 city and these are the 2 we prefer. Hoping to stay in Casci in Florence and not yet found a hotel in rome.
Please excuse me if I sound like a curmudgeon, but why is it important for you to see two cities? Especially since there is so much to see and do in Rome.
Peter
Posts: 1364 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
OK, Christy: if you want to do two cities, and assuming no special interests (periods, topics, types of monuments, specific items on your agenda), then an even division is the best plan.
On the other hand I'm with PCP: both Florence and Rome are so incredibly stuffed with stuff to see, eat, and experience, that 1 seems better than 2, since even in a month noone can do more than scratch the surface of either one. Two cities — again, unless you have some awfully good reason in mind — is just diluting the richness of your experience, to say nothing of an extra move, the added cost of having to stay in hotels rather than a rental apartment, and the time spent on trains.
Since you seem more prepared for Florence, it might be that that's where your heart is really set, and Rome is the city to skip.
Well my husband and I fear we may never have another chance to see Europe and we want to make the best of it. I was afraid that perhaps we may have tried to squeeze in too much,in too little time. perhaps we will just stick with Rome...is it better to stay in apartments if staying in 1 city for 7 days? Also, any day trips that you can recommend by train?
Ok, as ultraslow as I am, I am telling you that you are not trying to do too much. probvably spending the whole week in one single location (ROMEROMEROME!) would be mor rewarding if it were me dong the trip, but three days in Florence and four in Rome are not too much. At least not WAY too much. Just say not to daytrips, though.
Although there would be plenty to see and do in Rome for a week, and you would actually see more by staying in one place since you're not spending part of a day on a train and checking in and out of hotels, if you don't think you'll be back then by all means go to Florence. You do have enough time to see some fabulous stuff in both cities. As an example, it's interesting to see Bernini's David at the Borghese Gallery in Rome, and contrast it with a visit to the Accademmia in Florence to see Michelangelo's version. The only problem with spending just 3 - 4 days in Rome, for a first and probably-only-timer, is that you will feel obligated to see the "big stuff", i.e. St. Peter's, the Vatican Museums, the Colosseum, the Forum. This means you'll spend most, if not all, of your time in the most touristed and crowded parts of Rome and have little or no time left for the many other minor sites that are less-visited and are immensely pleasurable, perhaps even more so given the lack of crowds. - Marie
Although I understand this is a slow travel sight (and I have found it helpful in many ways), and I do appreciate taking the time to get to know a place, sometimes I think too much emphasis can be put on staying in one place. I have been to Italy before, and am currently planning another trip with my boyfriend who has never been. The price of airline flights is outrageous and we do not know when we can go back. We intend to go a number of places. The first time I was in Italy, I spent 3 nights in Florence and 3 nights in Rome. I later ended up back in Florence for another 2 nights. I felt that was more than enough time to do more than just the tourist attractions. I obviously missed some stuff, and I'm sure there was much more to see and do. But I know it was important to me to see the main things in more than one city, but still with enough time to eat in the restaurants and see the culture, than to travel that far and not go another few hours to see other major attractions. I think even with 3 nights in a city, you can spend some time doing non-touristy things.
Actually, I don't think there is enough emphasis placed on "slow travel" here. Then again I don't travel to Italy in order to seek out and breeze by the "tourist attractions".
Peter
Posts: 1364 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
well, having never been to Europe before, and not knowing if I will ever go again, I am looking forward to all the "tourist attractions"! Hopefully one day I will be able to participate in the "slow travel", but for now, just wanting to see as much as I can in 6 or 7 days. Sorry if my "touristy" ways bother anyone
Tourism hardly bothers me, Christy, in case you wuz wondering; a tourist myself, of course. I do still think it would be better to do Florence and a day trip or two (mostly on the grounds you'll see more and remember it better that way), but as Alice says, if that's what you have, that's what you have, and it really is OK, if a bit more tiring and less focused. Now if you were trying to do 3 major cities — no!
Cristy--no worries. Your method of travel doesn't "bother" anyone. It is just that this board is more inclined toward slow travel--hence the name.
You can do whatever you want and you'll have a great trip. I think that most of us have been there--the three days in one city--and know that upon return home, the experience isn't as rich as it is when you can FEEL a place. Now, that isn't discounting your desire to see whatever you want to see. Your choice and I am sure you will enjoy your trip. And, never say never for returning to Europe! You never know! Good luck.
Topic Closed
