Tell me what to do for two days in Rome

[Anonymous]

16:20 here - I did see the Sistine Chapel but was it worth the line? I dunno. The line was incredibly long and then I looked up and saw a cool looking ceiling. I had to remind myself that painting that a few hundred years ago would be a lot harder than it would be today.

Vatican City though? St. Peter's Basilica? Yeah you have to see it. The size is stunning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:20 here - I did see the Sistine Chapel but was it worth the line? I dunno. The line was incredibly long and then I looked up and saw a cool looking ceiling. I had to remind myself that painting that a few hundred years ago would be a lot harder than it would be today.

Vatican City though? St. Peter's Basilica? Yeah you have to see it. The size is stunning.

What’s with the dunno?

[Anonymous]

16:23 - 16:20 here. how come? Circus Maximus is visible from the outside - I didn't need tickets to see anything. i simply looked at it from the road. The Coliseum is visible from the outside. The Pantheon, I guess they require tickets now?

What is different from 2018?

[Anonymous]

16:28 - 16:20/16:26 here - sorry, I thought I explained "I dunno." I was in a thick crowd, a line through a hallway, for over an hour before I was finally able to enter. By that time I was kind of over the whole museum thing. Sure, it's impressive - but I would have been a lot more impressed a few hundred years ago, before I had anything to compare it to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had less than 48 hours in Rome. Landed 8 am or so, took train into Rome, subway to Vatican City - went straight there with only my regular backpack (I travel light). Had tickets for 1 or 2 pm I think. Did the Vatican City museums, Sistine Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica, etc. Went to my hotel, about five minutes' walk from Vatican City afterwards, dropped off my stuff.

Went to bed early - hadn't slept well on the red eye over - up before dawn the next morning (the time difference helps!) and started walking. I walked ALL DAY. Simply roamed. I got to the Circus Maximus before I saw anyone - the sun was just rising (this was Labor Day weekend). Then the Palatino. All that stuff - no lines if you go early enough. Then the Coliseum (going in was a waste of time - I should have simply admired from outside. The lines were NOT worth it). I just kept on walking. Lunch at a random pizza place -you can't go wrong with pizza. Gelato a couple of places. Hit the Trevi Fountain which, as people here have said was kinda shitty - I worked my way through the crowds to find it was under construction/closed for cleaning and there was no water. Then the Pantheon. Then just walking around to spots that looked interesting on the map.

I don't think anything was "too far" or
"Rome is too spread out." It's fairly flat and anyone in decent shape can manage it easily.

What really worked for me was starting out super early. The city is just really cool, especially the oldest part (Circus Maxiumus, Palatino) without 7 billion tourists with selfie sticks.

All this was 2018. I did wander into an area a few blocks from the Coliseum where I realized - wow no, I'm not safe here (single female) and I got out of there hastily, back to the tourist track.

You mentioned you did this in 2018. All this could not be done now.

DP

Why?

Did they move the historical sites around so you can no longer walk to them throughout the course of the day?

The poster commented they thought going into the Colosseum was a waste of time, and based on what I've gleaned from dozens of in depth YouTube videos, that's what I had suspected as well.

The time difference might work in our favor in terms of walking around at the crack of dawn to see a few things before the streets get too crowded. By "see" I don't mean go inside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:20 here - I did see the Sistine Chapel but was it worth the line? I dunno. The line was incredibly long and then I looked up and saw a cool looking ceiling. I had to remind myself that painting that a few hundred years ago would be a lot harder than it would be today.

Vatican City though? St. Peter's Basilica? Yeah you have to see it. The size is stunning.

This is how I feel: seeing Vatican City from a distance would be lovely. Walking around the outside would be impressive--just the size of it along with the actual history of St. Peter's Square.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:23 - 16:20 here. how come? Circus Maximus is visible from the outside - I didn't need tickets to see anything. i simply looked at it from the road. The Coliseum is visible from the outside. The Pantheon, I guess they require tickets now?

What is different from 2018?

Did you not see the news last year with the hordes of people visiting Italy? It was record numbers with issues at the collesseum. This was all over the news. Rome was bursting at the seams with tourists and not expected to die down since covid. It is not anything like 2018 and the Vatican tour guide said it’s been unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had less than 48 hours in Rome. Landed 8 am or so, took train into Rome, subway to Vatican City - went straight there with only my regular backpack (I travel light). Had tickets for 1 or 2 pm I think. Did the Vatican City museums, Sistine Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica, etc. Went to my hotel, about five minutes' walk from Vatican City afterwards, dropped off my stuff.

Went to bed early - hadn't slept well on the red eye over - up before dawn the next morning (the time difference helps!) and started walking. I walked ALL DAY. Simply roamed. I got to the Circus Maximus before I saw anyone - the sun was just rising (this was Labor Day weekend). Then the Palatino. All that stuff - no lines if you go early enough. Then the Coliseum (going in was a waste of time - I should have simply admired from outside. The lines were NOT worth it). I just kept on walking. Lunch at a random pizza place -you can't go wrong with pizza. Gelato a couple of places. Hit the Trevi Fountain which, as people here have said was kinda shitty - I worked my way through the crowds to find it was under construction/closed for cleaning and there was no water. Then the Pantheon. Then just walking around to spots that looked interesting on the map.

I don't think anything was "too far" or
"Rome is too spread out." It's fairly flat and anyone in decent shape can manage it easily.

What really worked for me was starting out super early. The city is just really cool, especially the oldest part (Circus Maxiumus, Palatino) without 7 billion tourists with selfie sticks.

All this was 2018. I did wander into an area a few blocks from the Coliseum where I realized - wow no, I'm not safe here (single female) and I got out of there hastily, back to the tourist track.

You mentioned you did this in 2018. All this could not be done now.

DP

Why?

Did they move the historical sites around so you can no longer walk to them throughout the course of the day?

The poster commented they thought going into the Colosseum was a waste of time, and based on what I've gleaned from dozens of in depth YouTube videos, that's what I had suspected as well.

The time difference might work in our favor in terms of walking around at the crack of dawn to see a few things before the streets get too crowded. By "see" I don't mean go inside.

Yeah, Italy moved the historical sites so people can’t walk to them throughout the day. That’s exactly what happened, genius.

[Anonymous]

My young teens loved the Coliseum tour, the Roman Forum and the Trevi fountain and walking around Piazza Navona at night. They did not enjoy the Vatican or the Parthenon.

[Anonymous]

https://gretastravels.com/rome-in-one-day/#Rome_1-day_itinerary_map

This walking itinerary seems very comprehensive. And I bet I can split it into two days and add some other items.

I'm thinking Day 1 will start with the Colosseum and Roman Forum (viewing them from afar) and then start the walking route.

Day 2 Could be the Vatican (with tix and a formal tour) and perhaps Castel Santangelo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My young teens loved the Coliseum tour, the Roman Forum and the Trevi fountain and walking around Piazza Navona at night. They did not enjoy the Vatican or the Parthenon.

I've heard the same from other families RE: the Vatican.

Did you actually go into the Pantheon? We watched an excellent video on it, and now we feel like we've seen it already ;0)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had less than 48 hours in Rome. Landed 8 am or so, took train into Rome, subway to Vatican City - went straight there with only my regular backpack (I travel light). Had tickets for 1 or 2 pm I think. Did the Vatican City museums, Sistine Chapel, St. Peter's Basilica, etc. Went to my hotel, about five minutes' walk from Vatican City afterwards, dropped off my stuff.

Went to bed early - hadn't slept well on the red eye over - up before dawn the next morning (the time difference helps!) and started walking. I walked ALL DAY. Simply roamed. I got to the Circus Maximus before I saw anyone - the sun was just rising (this was Labor Day weekend). Then the Palatino. All that stuff - no lines if you go early enough. Then the Coliseum (going in was a waste of time - I should have simply admired from outside. The lines were NOT worth it). I just kept on walking. Lunch at a random pizza place -you can't go wrong with pizza. Gelato a couple of places. Hit the Trevi Fountain which, as people here have said was kinda shitty - I worked my way through the crowds to find it was under construction/closed for cleaning and there was no water. Then the Pantheon. Then just walking around to spots that looked interesting on the map.

I don't think anything was "too far" or
"Rome is too spread out." It's fairly flat and anyone in decent shape can manage it easily.

What really worked for me was starting out super early. The city is just really cool, especially the oldest part (Circus Maxiumus, Palatino) without 7 billion tourists with selfie sticks.

All this was 2018. I did wander into an area a few blocks from the Coliseum where I realized - wow no, I'm not safe here (single female) and I got out of there hastily, back to the tourist track.

You mentioned you did this in 2018. All this could not be done now.

DP

Why?

Did they move the historical sites around so you can no longer walk to them throughout the course of the day?

The poster commented they thought going into the Colosseum was a waste of time, and based on what I've gleaned from dozens of in depth YouTube videos, that's what I had suspected as well.

The time difference might work in our favor in terms of walking around at the crack of dawn to see a few things before the streets get too crowded. By "see" I don't mean go inside.

Yeah, Italy moved the historical sites so people can’t walk to them throughout the day. That’s exactly what happened, genius.

Ah, we've encountered the know-it-all poster who didn't realize the pp was (obviously) joking.

Let me break it down for you, pp: if someone was able to walk to a variety of major sites in one day in 2018 (or even 1972), then one can obviously still walk to all those sites...even today!!!

Will there be tons of people? Yes! Will you need skip the line tix and tons of time to actually go inside? Yes!

But can you still walk all over Rome, see the major sites, and have a fantastic time...even now? Yes!

[Anonymous]

https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/lazio/roma/fontana-di-trevi.html

Link to live webcam at Trevi Fountain.

There's one for the Colosseum, but it's currently offline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rome is not condensed enough to walk around and see sights. They are spread out from one another. You could walk by the colleseum but won’t see what people go to see. Same with vatican, st Peters basicila, Sistine chapel, the forum. You have to go inside with ticket.
I guess you could walk by Trevi fountain if you can get up to it with the hordes of tourists and Spanish steps which is meh. But you can’t walk from one site to another throughout the whole city.

I studied abroad in Rome and disagree with this unless someone in your party is disabled and out of shape. I walked all around Rome all the time and barely ever took public transport and saw everything.

First, skip the vatican. That frees up a lot of time.

You absolutely can just walk around Rome and see a ton. Walk by the Colisseum - you see a lot of it just from the street if you can't get tickets. You can walk by Trevi Fountain. You can walk up the stairs to overlook the Roman Forum. You can walk by the Wedding Cake and the Spanish Steps. Sit outside at cafes and eat pizza.

I really like the Villa Borghese. It's worth getting tickets for, IMO. Calm and pretty and quiet and a nice respite from Rome.

I did a report on the Church de San Clemente's underground and really liked it - not sure if it's still off the beaten path.

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

You absoultely can just spend a couple days walking around Rome and soak up the scenery and vibes without standing in lines and going into museums. And if you are fit you can walk nearly everywhere.

Thanks! This is very helpful.

Our family is fit and can handle walking all day (family of runners).

I mean this respectfully, but you do not know what you are talking about. Have you ever been to Rome?

My partner has...and they walked everywhere unless they lined up a private driver.

While I haven't been to Rome, I have taken my family to plenty of places where we do 20k-40k steps in one day. If we get in a jam, we hitch a ride.

I understand that we are in the minority when it comes to being okay with just enjoying the outside of the Colosseum or the Pantheon. With only two days and not wanting to spend both days in lines and indoors, I'm leaning towards making the Vatican the big ticket/indoor thing...and hoping to find some other items (that google says are hidden gems but are still admittedly touristy).

YouTube research tells me there is plenty of notable art in places other than the usual suspect sites. That's what I'm aiming for. Perhaps instead of seeing all the usual suspect places, my kids will enjoy having seen some cool things that most others haven't seen. Not necessarily to be cool...but to avoid the worst of the crowds and lines.

OP, maybe take a minute to examine your clear need to define yourself in opposition to what others like/do.

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

Acknowledging that I am likely in the minority by being okay with admiring some sites from outside (as evidenced by the majority of the comments in the thread that seem to indicate I'll miss out if I don't go inside) isn't "a clear need to define myself" ... it's just acknowledging where I am coming from (primarily with the hope that someone with a similar travel style might chime in).

I get that the top ten things listed on virtually every google search for Rome will be incredibly crowded and most will require a ticket ahead of time. My comment about finding other sites beyond the top ten was meant to underscore that we don't need to see the most popular things. We won't feel like we failed if we don't see everything. How could we in just two days? Another poster made a comment along the lines of why bother going to the Vatican if you skip the Sistine Chapel, and that's precisely the kind of thinking that is very, very common in DCUMlandia (have you seen the multitude of posts from people who say you shouldn't bother going to London or Paris unless you spend at least a week or more in one place, otherwise it's a waste of time? That's very common in DCUM, but again, that's not me. I'll go anywhere for any length of time and have fun while I'm there without feeling pressure to see/do the "must sees"). Nonetheless, I know other people IRL who take a "let's just see something, eat well, and have fun" approach to travel. I don't think I'm special for having this goal, and I certainly don't define myself by my approach to family vacations.

And I suspect others who prefer to have a well-planned itinerary similarly don't define themselves by their travel style. Or maybe they do? I mean, it didn't take very long for posters to call me clueless for hoping to avoid public transportation and skip going inside some of the major tourist attractions.

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

All this self-important rambling and yet OP still can’t tell us what month she’s visiting Rome.
🙄🙄

As someone who could give a street by street itinerary with Roman sites that are frequented by Romans themselves, I have no interest in helping OP. She’s just far too obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rome is not condensed enough to walk around and see sights. They are spread out from one another. You could walk by the colleseum but won’t see what people go to see. Same with vatican, st Peters basicila, Sistine chapel, the forum. You have to go inside with ticket.
I guess you could walk by Trevi fountain if you can get up to it with the hordes of tourists and Spanish steps which is meh. But you can’t walk from one site to another throughout the whole city.

I studied abroad in Rome and disagree with this unless someone in your party is disabled and out of shape. I walked all around Rome all the time and barely ever took public transport and saw everything.

First, skip the vatican. That frees up a lot of time.

You absolutely can just walk around Rome and see a ton. Walk by the Colisseum - you see a lot of it just from the street if you can't get tickets. You can walk by Trevi Fountain. You can walk up the stairs to overlook the Roman Forum. You can walk by the Wedding Cake and the Spanish Steps. Sit outside at cafes and eat pizza.

I really like the Villa Borghese. It's worth getting tickets for, IMO. Calm and pretty and quiet and a nice respite from Rome.

I did a report on the Church de San Clemente's underground and really liked it - not sure if it's still off the beaten path.

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

You absoultely can just spend a couple days walking around Rome and soak up the scenery and vibes without standing in lines and going into museums. And if you are fit you can walk nearly everywhere.

Thanks! This is very helpful.

Our family is fit and can handle walking all day (family of runners).

I mean this respectfully, but you do not know what you are talking about. Have you ever been to Rome?

My partner has...and they walked everywhere unless they lined up a private driver.

While I haven't been to Rome, I have taken my family to plenty of places where we do 20k-40k steps in one day. If we get in a jam, we hitch a ride.

I understand that we are in the minority when it comes to being okay with just enjoying the outside of the Colosseum or the Pantheon. With only two days and not wanting to spend both days in lines and indoors, I'm leaning towards making the Vatican the big ticket/indoor thing...and hoping to find some other items (that google says are hidden gems but are still admittedly touristy).

YouTube research tells me there is plenty of notable art in places other than the usual suspect sites. That's what I'm aiming for. Perhaps instead of seeing all the usual suspect places, my kids will enjoy having seen some cool things that most others haven't seen. Not necessarily to be cool...but to avoid the worst of the crowds and lines.

OP, maybe take a minute to examine your clear need to define yourself in opposition to what others like/do.

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

Acknowledging that I am likely in the minority by being okay with admiring some sites from outside (as evidenced by the majority of the comments in the thread that seem to indicate I'll miss out if I don't go inside) isn't "a clear need to define myself" ... it's just acknowledging where I am coming from (primarily with the hope that someone with a similar travel style might chime in).

I get that the top ten things listed on virtually every google search for Rome will be incredibly crowded and most will require a ticket ahead of time. My comment about finding other sites beyond the top ten was meant to underscore that we don't need to see the most popular things. We won't feel like we failed if we don't see everything. How could we in just two days? Another poster made a comment along the lines of why bother going to the Vatican if you skip the Sistine Chapel, and that's precisely the kind of thinking that is very, very common in DCUMlandia (have you seen the multitude of posts from people who say you shouldn't bother going to London or Paris unless you spend at least a week or more in one place, otherwise it's a waste of time? That's very common in DCUM, but again, that's not me. I'll go anywhere for any length of time and have fun while I'm there without feeling pressure to see/do the "must sees"). Nonetheless, I know other people IRL who take a "let's just see something, eat well, and have fun" approach to travel. I don't think I'm special for having this goal, and I certainly don't define myself by my approach to family vacations.

And I suspect others who prefer to have a well-planned itinerary similarly don't define themselves by their travel style. Or maybe they do? I mean, it didn't take very long for posters to call me clueless for hoping to avoid public transportation and skip going inside some of the major tourist attractions.

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

All this self-important rambling and yet OP still can’t tell us what month she’s visiting Rome.
🙄🙄

As someone who could give a street by street itinerary with Roman sites that are frequented by Romans themselves, I have no interest in helping OP. She’s just far too obnoxious.

DP

Why does the month of travel matter when the question has to do with walking around and visiting sites?

Subsequent posts indicate they are taking the heat into consideration and traveling with kids, so it's safe to assume summer.

PS - Bragging about your supreme knowledge and how easy it would be to make a suggestion only to say you won't do that because the OP is obnoxious is...well...obnoxious :0)