My travel plan is to stay 3 nights in Vienna, than travel during the night to Venice, stay there for 5 nights, followed by taking the highspeed train to Rome and stay there for 4 nights.
I'm just wondering, is this a good balance/good loacations?
PS: Please don't recommend Florence/Tuscany area, as I have put thought into going there, but won't.
Max 2 nights in Venice and moar in Rome. Seriously though, try Florence or Milan too
>>1125810
Yes, I'm doubtful still, but maybe change it to:
Vienna: 3 nights
Venice: 3 nights
Rome: 4/5 nights
Florence: 2/3 nights
But I'm planning Florence/Tuscany area mostly for an other time, because of Pisa, Sienna, Luca and what not etc.
I'm mostly wondering if 3 nights is enough for Venice and how much is recommended for Rome.
>>1125814
3 nights is okay for Venice, I wouldn't go under. Rome is a big city and you need to think of how much stuff you want to see
>>1125810
What the hell is there to do in Milan?
>>1125805
>Venice
>5 nights
You can pretty much see/do everything worthwhile to see/do in Venice in 2 full days taking it easy. I'd cut it down and spend 3 nights at most and spend the extra days on something else.
>>1125855
Nothing. Remove it from the list.
>>1125814
2 nights in Venice tops, move it all to Rome. There's a shitton to see in Rome all over the city, while Venice is fairly compact - which means quick sightseeing and extreme crowds.
>>1126109
true, venice will get boring fast, rome is big as fuck even 1 week would be a very very low time to visit it
>>1125805
As everyone said, more Rome, less Venice. Never seen Vienna, but I can say that Florence is one of the most beautiful city I've ever been, so I'd stay longer there if I were you.
Also think about Sienna next time you're around FLorence, the Palio is a thing to witness
I would cut down Venice by one day maybe. But then again, if you're going in Summer, Lido might also be worth checking out so you could use the extra day.