I'm going to Italy! Where should I go?

I totally agree with this, especially the part about Assisi. It is like going back in time and there is so much to see and do.

I also agree that a week is not enough time to see any one of these places, but at the same time there is something to be said about the idea of seeing a little of a lot of different places. To go from Rome, to Florence and then to Venice is going to be a lot of driving. This fact might make me want to stick to just Rome and Florence because of all the driving. Then I remembered how wonderful it is to drive through Italy.

One warning especially if you do drive everywhere you intend to: STAY IN THE RIGHT LANE UNLESS PASSING. Do not think that you understand this rule, because you don’t until you’ve driven for a while in Italy. If you want to pass someone, check in your mirror and make sure there isn’t some car coming up that is going faster than you are going. If you are only half way around the car you are passing and that faster car catches up you will be honked at, lights will flash and the driver will start making those hand signals that only Italians can make. It will happen, but the longer you drive there the more you learn to avoid this disgrace. :wink:

I tend to agree with DMark that one week is not sufficient for Italy. I’ve visited Venice, Florence, and Rome over a two-week period, and still felt rushed. I’ve also seen those cities on a more luxurious basis–one week for each city–and I know I still have far to see all of these cities in great depth.

However, you can probably get a decent overview of two of these cities within a week. For distance and time reasons, I’d suggest sticking with Rome and Florence (Venice is mind-boggingly beautiful, and I recently posted my recommendations for that city–but I would suggest saving it for a future trip, along with trips to other northern cities like Verona and Padua).

Rome offers so many wonderful sights–you can’t find any better collection of Baroque monuments or Roman ruins. In addition to the obvious sights (the Vatican, the Colosseum, etc.), where else can you see Michelangelo’s Moses (the tomb for Pope Julius II, in San Pietro in Vincoli), Caravaggio’s cycle of St. Matthew paintings (in San Luigi dei Francesci), or the best collection of Bernini sculptures (the Galleria Borghese, which also features wonderful Renaissance paintings, and is set in a picture-perfect park on the northern side of the city)?

The one drawback about Rome is the traffic–the modern city is difficult to get away from (and, indeed, a large motorway bisects the Roman Forum from the Imperial Forums). However, there are several areas that are closed off to the traffic–including such beautiful squares as the Piazza Navona and the Campo dei Fiori–and only Rome has such places as the Pantheon (my all-time favorite building in the world!) and the Spanish Steps (not too far from the gardens that enclose the Galleria Borghese). To get away from the tourist crowds too, you may want to check out the Trastevere area on the west side of the Tiber–which features several good local restaurants (i.e., non-touristy) as well as beautiful Early Christian churches).

I must also speak up in defense of Florence, my favorite city in the world. If you like Italian Renaissance art at all, you’ll be in love–it is a city of museums, ranging from the famous Uffizi to the Accademia (the latter contains Michelangelo’s David). It’s also worthwhile to visit the Bargello, the best collection of Renaissance sculptures in the world (including Donatello and Verrocchio’s own versions of David, plus some early Michelangelos). I would also second (or third) the Museo del Duomo, which houses many of the works formerly in the Cathedral of Florence, including Ghiberti’s Doors of Paradise (the panels that you see on the actual Baptistery–a wonderful, wonderful building in its own right–are actually replicas; the original panels are in this museum).

The Cathedral (or Duomo) of Florence is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful buildings in the world (for me, it is second only after the Pantheon in Rome). But don’t forget to see the Palazzo Pitti, which houses the Palatine Gallery (almost as comprehensive as the Uffizi). If you like Fra Angelico at all, you would like the San Marco monastery. I’d also recommend several of Florence’s churches, especially Santa Maria Novella (just outside the train station) and Santa Croce, both of which contain beautiful fourteenth and fifteenth-century frescoes.

And speaking of frescoes, if you like early Renaissance painting, you’ll have to visit the Brancacci Chapel to see Masaccio’s frescoes–some of the earliest works of truly Renaissance art.

This site, which is produced by the city government of Florence, contains a plethora of information for Florence visitors–including a guide to public toilets and restaurants (my suggestion for the former is to use McDonald’s bathrooms, which are always quite clean; for the latter, by all means avoid McDonald’s, and search out some of the local restaurants–the ones on the south side of the Arno are nice, as are the ones around the piazza of San Pier Maggiore a few blocks north of Santa Croce).
To round things off, don’t forget to climb up the hill to San Miniato al Monte to take in a fantastic view of Florence and the Arno (as well as to see a quite lovely Romanesque church). Fiesole, on the hill to the north of Florence, is also very nice for views of the countryside, and a nice village in its own right.

A week?
Rome. Italy is staggeringly vast in depth. (Which pretty well amounts to breadth as well, when it comes to absorption for the traveller.) I’d guess you just don’t have time to go usefully much afield. It’s a matter of rationally choosing what you can experience in a limited time. You can’t do it all, or even usefully sample much beyond a very limited scope.
If I absolutely had to choose, I’d spend the bulk of the time in Rome. It’s–amazing. It’ll take at least a full day to get beyond the exhausting, bedazzled touristy sites that really are worth seeing, hokeiness aside. (That’s after jet lag.) The small churches, museums, trattoria, offbeat treasures, etc. take time to 1. discover and 2. savour properly. Hurrying destroys the true charm and magic. And it’s very non-Italian.
If I had to choose a side-jaunt among so many (aarruugh!), I’d choose Florence over Venice. It offers more ‘unexpected wonders’ along the journey, not to mention stifling Destination Hype. A nice mix might be doing the “city” thing with Rome then decompressing on the coast.

Well, then my alternate suggestion is to skip Rome–it’s probably the easiest city in Italy to get to so it’ll always be there if Gaudere wants to return. Spend a majority of that time in Tuscany, and take an overnight train for a day in Venice–nowhere near sufficient but enough to touch on the real magic of the place.

I also don’t mean to give Rome short shrift on the “ancientness” of the city (as SoP put it), for I’d say that’s the only genuinely interesting thing about the city. But unless you’re a real history buff, I think it gets a little, well, old after a while (plus I found Rome the dirtiest, noisiest, and busiest of all the places I’ve been to in Italy). In short, the city is well worth going to once, but if you’ve only got a week, use your time elsewhere–you can always hit Rome again, IMHO.

I would second this - except I would spend the last two days in Venice. Road trip taking in Verona and the Italian Lakes, (Lake Garda is quite close) is another option if you like scenery more than art.

There are plenty of lovely places to visit all around Rome. Consider Tivoli, it has the Villa of the Emperor Hadrian - wonderful place, it takes one day just to take it in!

And what about all the small towns around Rome? From Bracciano in the North, to Ostia on the seaside to Frascati in the south, the countryside teems with small towns that are very much worth your time, especially if you want to stay as little as possible close to the scary Italian drivers (I oughta know - I taught them!*). A small, absolutely incomplete list includes Albano Laziale, Bracciano, Bolsena (a bit further up), Castel Gandolfo, Frascati, Genzano, Grottaferrata, Nemi, Tivoli, Velletri.

The towns in the hills south of Rome are called the Roman Castles and are quite notorious locally - they are the place where Romans go for tourism. Do consider them! If you plan to come back to Italy anyway there’s no sense in rushing to take all in in one go.

*: Before moving to England I worked as a driving tutor in my family’s firm. I swear we try to train them to be corteous and respectful, but I think the peer pressure takes over when they’re on their own.

Has anyone been to the hill towns (like San Gemingano)? Are they worth it? Also, I understand that Ravenna is worth the trip-a perfectly -preserved late-Roman sity!

Ah, you’re right.You didn’t criticize anyone.(But me, that is.)And now I have to put spaces after commas, which I’ve never done before, and will no doubt forget in five minutes or less.It shows how much regard I have for laws.

I can see how tough it’s going to be to catch you since you don’t enter threads to correct spelling or grammar, only to slap SDMB rule scofflaws around.

But I’m going to stalk you until you make a mistake, and then I’ll pounce on you like the wrath of Pee Wee Herman or someone equally fierce.I know if you’re caught you’ll just come up with some previously unknown “law” to cover yourself, but I will never be deterred.I shall prevail!

San Gimignano is very cute, very small, and very, very touristy. I think every shop that I saw catered to tourists. But OTOH they were nice shops. You could spend an awful lot of money there, very easily. Tons of Germans tourists too (which I tend to find grating for some reason).

Basically, it’s worth a few hours on the way to somewhere else.