Rome or Florence? Or both?
 

Hi all,
It turns out that we will have approximately 4 nights to spend either in Rome, Florence, or both.

I know both cities are different (but have not been to either)...does it make sense to try and split 2 days each in both cities? I heard there is a speed train that will take only 1.5 hrs from Rome to Florence. Or are we better off picking a city and staying there for 4 nights?

Thanks.

Stay in Rome for 4 nights.

Well this will get alot of different answers. I would do Florence 4 days without a doubt. I would stay at the Savoy Hotel.

Could you give some reasons why you prefer Florence over Rome? Thanks

Two days is enough for neither.

Four days at a dead run remains inadequate for Rome.

Four days a'foot (with maybe an afternoon's side trip to the suburbs) will at least cover most of the major sights of Florence (although leaving Siena and "San Gmig" on the horizon.

Go to Florence.

No way you can do Rome justice in 4 days, let alone 2. A day at Vatican City, a day at the Forum/Palatine/Capitoline/Coliseum, a day in the downtown core hitting the Spanish Steps, Pantheon, Piazza Navona, Trevi Fountain, a day meandering around bohemian Trestevere, a day of shopping Via del Corso and Via Condotti...I'm just getting started. And don't forget that you will probably spend an inordinate amount of time eating (a good thing given the quality of food!)

I would definately recommend chosing one or the other. Keep a close eye on your wallet and steer clear of Roman taxi drivers if at all possible. They'll take you for a ride...in more ways than one.

It's not a matter of "preferring" Florence, but that one can better "see" Florence in 4 days, almost impossible in Rome. Comprehending "extent" and "scale" are necessary ingredients in any travel recipe.

By "four days," I assume you mean "three nights." The first and last day are, of course, not full days because of having to get to or from the airport. Three nights in Rome is barely a taste of Rome. Three nights in Florence would give you a better feel for the city (though I don't think there is enough time for day trips). I like both cities very much, but they are quite different. Florence is much more compact, and it's easier to get around and see things. Rome is quite a big city and is best visited in sections. They're both great for walking around, both have incredible art (though Florence has an edge, I think), both have extraordinary architecture (though in Florence you can easily visualize yourself transported back to the Renaissance). I'd put Rome in the lead for restaurants and shopping, though Florence has good examples of both.

Is this your first trip to Italy? Will it be your last?

Important considerations, indeed.

Don't forget that if you would elect to do both, you have to factor in the time it takes to get to and from the stations in Rome and Florence (plus waiting time) - in other words, that 90 minutes actually ends up being longer.

Given the short time involved, I'd say that if you are more oriented towards visual art (painting, sclupture, etc) go to Florence. If you're more into historical structures, monuments, and churches, etc., do a "highlights tour" of Rome.

Indeed - something we can all agree on.

Ultimately yours is an apples/oranges type of question. It comes down to personal taste and what you want from your vacation. I lived in Italy for two years while researching my doctoral dissertation on Italian Renaissance Art, I go back every summer. I prefer Rome to Florence precisely b/c its larger, has a great deal more to see from the entire scope of Italian history (Florence is essentially a 15th century destination) and b/c its larger, its easier to get away from large crowds of tourists following a guide w/a microphone.

I agree with the general direction of the conversation.

Are you really interested in the Renaissance, Renaissance art, the Medici family? Then go to Florence.

Are you really into ancient history, ancient Rome, archeological ruins? Then go to Rome.

Whichever choice you make, get reservations in advance for the major museums (Academia, Uffizi Gallery in Florence; Vatican Museum--you'll need to get into a tour--and Borghese Museum in Rome). This will save hours of your precious time otherwise spent waiting in a queue.

If I only had 4 days I'd do Rome. Both cities are great though.

I would opt for Rome since you would have more options. As mentioned above, reservations are a must no matter what you choose to see.

IMHO, I would go to Florence. Rome is just too much. Tiring for a short visit, until you get familiar.

Actually, I like Sienna the best. A great medieval town for strolling and eating. And the lovely countryside as a bonus. So, Florence, and Sienna, two days each is my suggestion.

Rome is my favoritecity in the year. We never spend less than a week (5 visits).
Do three days in Florence. Take one of those days for a day trip to Lucca.