t325

Planning a trip to Italy next year - don't know the exact length (probably a week to 10 days), and was thinking of Venice, then Florence, perhaps Bologna, then Rome. And maybe Naples.

All inter-Italy travel will be on train, so time spent in each city is flexible and I can decide that later, the only thing I need to figure out is start and end points because I want to book the award seats as soon as I find availability for the time I want.

The logical ordering is Venice-Bologna-Florence-Rome-Naples, or vice versa - award availability will determine that order. Venice is a must-see, so I know that's at one end. However, I'd like to get some opinions if Rome or Naples should be on the other end - is Naples something really worth seeing, or is time better spent in VCE, FCO, or any of the cities in between?

Also, what sort of weather could I expect in mid-April, I'm eyeing sometime around then, hopefully before Italy gets too overrun with tourists in the summer months. Thanks in advance

KLouis

Seven (and even 10) days for those 4 or 5 cities is simply a [self-censored]. In a week you could "do" 2 of those cities and in 10 days a maximum of 3. As for Naples, the simplest answer is an old Italian saying: Vedi Napoli e poi muori!

Perche

All four of those cities are must sees. Unfortunately, you are on a short vacation and you only have time for one or two, or else you're going to ruin your trip.

Going from city to city and not staying in one place so that you can experience it rather than, "do it," as in, "I've been there, I have the picture of me holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa to prove it," is to visit Italy like a tourist, where you don't really gain much. Visiting Italy is not about how many cities you can squeeze in. It's about experiencing a completely different lifestyle. Italian culture is very different from American culture, and is also very different from Italian-American culture. You can't experience it on a train. Get to know it, and it will rub off and enrich you.

Even in ten days you don't have time for more than two cities. In your shoes with ten days I'd fly into Venice, then take the train to Rome and fly out of there. Just split the ten days between those two. If you are only going for a week then just Venice, with a side trip to Verona or Padua, or even other cities that I could suggest. On the plus side, you are going at one of the best times of the year. A week in Italy in April is better than two weeks in August.

Lkeade

We just got back from 10 days (1 day Pompeii, 2 days Florence, 7 days Rome) and it was not nearly enough time to do those cities justice. Florence was our favorite place, but I would not have missed out on Rome for the world as there is so much history there. While the countryside as seen from the train was beautiful, I would rather spend my vacation time experiencing the cities rather than traveling between them.

MSPeconomist

As I see it, no to Naples even if you have time. However, in the Naples area are Pompeii, the Amalfi coast, and Capri (and Ischia, a similar but much more local island also accessible from Naples by hydrofoil).