fishingfrye

We are taking a trip to Italy next May. We will be flying into Rome on Sunday evening and taking a train to Florence on Tuesday. We wil be back in Rome on Thursday evening and leaving for a cruise on Sunday. After the cruise we will have 1 1/2 days back in Rome before leaving for home. Our friends want to go to Pompeioo for a day, but I am afraid we won't have enought time in Rome to see everything we want to see an keep leaving on days trips. Any suggestions? Is it worth traveling down to Pompeii for the day and returning to Rome.

sk3

That's an impossible question to answer - it's completely subjective. We have no clue as to your personal interests and what your goals are for this trip (i.e. is this the one and only time you will ever be in Italy and are attempting to see eveything you can?)

If you want to know is it worth it to me, then no, I think this itinerary you're proposing is definitely not worth it. You will spend many hours traveling there and back leaving a very limited time to view the site - which is massive. To me, this would be doing a disservice to the site and to myself. A day trip to Pompeii makes perfect sense when you're based out of Sorrento, for instance, not Rome.

Rome has an endless amount of things to see and experience, and a staggering amount of choices for places to eat and shop. If you wanted to see a large archeological site, you could always visit Ostia Antica. You could visit Augustus' house on the Palatine and see just a few rooms with wall frescoes in situ - just a mere taste of what you'd see in Pompeii, but amazing nonetheless. If the trip to Pompeii was filling a need to see something outside of Rome, a day trip to Tivoli makes much more sense given your limited time - Hadrian's Villa and Villa D'Este are incredible.

I'm trying to figure out how much actual time you'll have in Rome. 4 full days? In any case, it's a short time broken up in 3 tiny segments, right? Given that, I'd advise availing yourself of places and sites within Rome itself and not even contemplate a day trip. But again, that's based on my subjective inclinations and specific interests. Why don't you tell us yours.

sk3

I just read your other thread and see what kind of traveler you are - specifically that you're going to Venice as a day trip.

So sure, go to Pompeii for the day, that will be just your speed.

Ciao.

fishingfrye

This will probably be our only trip to Italy. We want to see as much as we can, but I feel like we will be traveling on the train so much and not allowing enough time to really feel like we have been to Rome. The trip to Florence and Venice will be such a rush that I was thinking 3 days together in Rome before the cruise would be much nicer than trying to rush again and see Pompeii. I don't want to miss out on something that is spectacular, but I also don't want to miss getting the experience of just being in Rome, taking in the sights and trying out the fabulous resturants. Thanks for you input.

bdemaria

I understand the "its the only time I may be here" plan of travel, but there's a down side to the "see as much as we can" approach, specifically that you spend so much time going from place to place that the only thing you really experience are train stations. If you were traveling to California, would you plan a trip where you gave yourself an afternoon in San Diego, c. 48 hrs in LA, and c. 48 hrs to experience San Francisco Bay Area + a trip to Napa Valley? If you are coming from the US, you should also factor in the very real issue of jet lag - esp. the first couple 24-36 hours.

Pompeii is spectacular, but so is Rome and you are not giving yourself nearly enough time to get in all that you will likely want to see/experience there.

sk3

I apologize for my snarky-ish post above. As some people on this forum know, I'm a major Rome-ophile and I'd choose to stay the entire time there and even forego the cruise! But what you're attempting to do, visit Florence, Rome and Venice in one week's time is very, very common - probably even the standard.

That said, to echo bdemaria, your current itinerary has you spending most of your time en route somewhere - and leaves little time to actually see and enjoy these cities. Do you HAVE to schedule it the way you do? (Fly into FCO, transfer from FCO to city center, train from Rome to Florence, train from Florence to Venice, train from Venice to Florence, train from Florence to Rome?)

What if when you arrive at FCO Sunday night, right from the airport you fly to VCE. I just looked at itasoftware for an arbitrary date next May (I used May 15th) and I see fares of €56 including taxes on AZ. There are 9 flights a day with the last one at 9:40pm, arriving VCE at 10:45pm. And yes, it's adding another hour of flights to your travel day - but chances are you'll be exhausted anyway, so what's another hour! Then you get from VCE into the city and spend your first night in Venice and explore that city on Monday. You could spend a second night there and take the train to Florence the next morning, or you could take the train to Florence Monday evening if you so desired.

Then you spend a couple of days in Florence and then take the train to Rome where you'll spend the remaining days before going to Civitavecchia to join your cruise.

So you'd be trading one airport to city transfer and 4 train rides for one airport to city transfer and 2 train rides.

That's all just my first thought - I'm sure there are many tried and true variations of touring these 3 cities out there on the web and in guidebooks. But the point being what you currently have planned sounds like something you might get stuck with if this was a work related trip - not something you planned yourself a year in advance for your once in a lifetime visit to Italy. Just an opinion from a stranger, for whatever it's worth.

rico567

I would feel stretched trying to do Rome, Florence, and Venice in three weeks....forget Pompeii. (Note: Pompeii is incredible, and high up on any must-see list for Italy that I would draw up. I just think the proposed trip is stretched way too thin.)

s3rndpt

I'm going to jump in with another vote for staying in Rome. You'd spend so much time getting to and from Pompei that you'd barely see any of the city. Pompei is both amazing and huge (it is, after all, an actual town, albeit a ruined one), which I don't think most people realize- just walking from end to end takes a good 30 minutes, and that's with no stops to see anything. For my next visit I plan on staying in Pompei and visiting the ruins for a least a full day--and I know I could spend several days there and Herculaneum and still not see everything I wanted to.

If I were you, I'd stay in Rome and see everything there as much as you can. There are so many amazing things to see in Rome as it is that you're going to be pretty busy for the 3 days you're there.

Naples/Pompei/the Amalfi Coast are really a destination unto themselves, and a quick day trip from Rome won't even give you a tiny taste of the area. If this is going to be your only trip to Italy, see as much in the areas you're visiting as you can- imo, that'll make it much more memorable and worth it for you.

Hawk Circle

Bdemaria's advice is on the mark. Trying to do too much with too little time will only diminish your overall travel experience and leave you exhausted.
If you plan a slower pace, I suspect you'll like Italy enough to go again someday.^