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.

>>1126060
>>1125855
How's the weather in Napoli?

>>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

>>1126109
>>1126128
You underestimate Venice, it's not that small nor quick to see, unless you're a cruise ship chink who gets unloaded for two hours in the main square and whisked back to the next destination. I'd say 3 nights is the bare minimum, and I'd stay 5-6 in Rome. Maybe 2 in Florence.

>>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.