Tell me what to do for two days in Rome

[Anonymous]

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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

You better let someone else take over because you are in over your head and very unaware of Rome. This is the one city where you should have tours and tickets ahead. I’ve been to over a dozen European countries and this is the one city where I purchased tickets for nearly everything. I am not exaggerating.

+1000

My family went to Rome last October and we had to book tours 1-3 months ahead of time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no answer on time of year for this trip. Very relevant. If you are going in peak summer, for instance, places will be very crowded (can't just walk up to Colosseum, as others have said), and walking long distances will be absolutely exhausting in the heat.

Understood RE: the heat...which is why we'd prefer to take a low-key approach to the two days: the goal will be to just see some things and have fun. I don't want anyone to be bored or feel like they are being dragged from one scheduled tour to the next.

RE: walking to the Colosseum: I mean walk 15 mins from our hotel and admire it from the outside...wherever the best view might be. I realize there will be tons of people. Perhaps we head there super early? You know how you can admire the Washington Monument without actually touching it or going up to the top? Like that.

Yes you can do that at the Colosseum. But why not buy tickets and go inside? If you buy advance tickets the line isn't bad, and it's open so you can wander as long or short as you want to. The scale from the inside is impressive and the thing I remember most.

I don't understand the desire to not book anything in advance, even just one or two things. You seem to want to win some sort of argument about who can have the most chill time in Rome.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

Disagree. We did a "small taste" tour of the Vatican that was either 2 or 3 hours that started before it opened to the public. They took us through the museums and showed us highlights with an art historian. We then went into the Sistene Chapel. Then the plaza area where the Pope speaks (I'm such a lousy Catholic -- can't remember what that's called!). Then St. Peter's itself, where she pointed out the highlights and then left us to spend as much or little time as we wanted. My husband and kids went home after that. I stayed to wander around the church a bit, debated going to mass, then decided to walk around Vatican City for a bit and have pastries, then walk back to our hotel near Piazza Navona and was back for a late lunch. That was all very do-able.

If your family is not an early morning family (we did the pre-opening tour), I would suggest the after-hours tour although that doesn't include St. Peter's itself (just the museum, sistene chapel, etc.). I think those are about 2 hours.

This small taste tour you mentioned has to be purchased way before. It sound like op just wants to walk up and wait. That’s not happening. Also, it’s not just a 2-3 hr commitment any longer. They need to plan for more time.

OP here: to clarify, no, I do not intend to walk up and wait anywhere. If we opt to go inside the major sites, then I'll secure tickets or line up a private tour ahead of time (like, soon).

I was hoping to hear from people who haven't felt obligated to schedule multiple tours and still had a great time. I'd like to hear how they spent their time.

But I realize this is DCUM, and I suspect most people feel compelled to see and do everything.

You need to schedule multiple tours. Walking around sounds nice, but not for 2 days in Rome. Sorry, it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

Op, book the tours and way ahead. This chill time you want is for some other location.
You don’t know what you are doing.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

I realize you need tix ahead of time. I meant my family would take a vote this weekend to determine if we want to get tix before the trip and plan to carve out what seems to be half a day to do that tour. One kid already said they'd rather tour the Vatican/Sistine Chapel/St. Peter's than spend half the day at the Colosseum. I agree. Having watched videos on it, I feel like we would be fine walking around it, enjoying the view from outside, and moving on. We can do that during the day or evening since it's a 15 min walk from our hotel.

I'm hoping to hear from some folks who have a slightly less rigid approach to travel. I understand that many families might opt to spend the better part of a week doing formal tours of the major sites in Rome, but that's not what we hope to do.

Anyone else take a less structured approach to travel?

I’ve spent a ton of time in Rome and tend to be a less scheduled traveler. But frankly, if you will be in Rome in the high season, you do need tickets. It sounds like you understand that but just know you won’t get in the Colosseum if you just show up. It’s not a great place to walk around outside, FWIW. It’s a trafficky mess, not a great place to walk. The best part of the Colosseum is the inside.

If you are going in October — a fabulous time to visit Rome — you can be much more lackadaisical and spontaneous.

When are you going?

OP has responded maybe 5 times but not answered this simple and very relevant question that multiple.people have asked.

But has noted that everyone in the family are runners.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

Np
These people are there for only 2 days. You lived there. Of course you walked around all the time.

What does that mean?

Most tourists opt to walk everywhere. Why not?

If we end up booking tours, they will be private tours with private drivers (e.g., hotel to Vatican).

[Anonymous]

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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

Disagree. We did a "small taste" tour of the Vatican that was either 2 or 3 hours that started before it opened to the public. They took us through the museums and showed us highlights with an art historian. We then went into the Sistene Chapel. Then the plaza area where the Pope speaks (I'm such a lousy Catholic -- can't remember what that's called!). Then St. Peter's itself, where she pointed out the highlights and then left us to spend as much or little time as we wanted. My husband and kids went home after that. I stayed to wander around the church a bit, debated going to mass, then decided to walk around Vatican City for a bit and have pastries, then walk back to our hotel near Piazza Navona and was back for a late lunch. That was all very do-able.

If your family is not an early morning family (we did the pre-opening tour), I would suggest the after-hours tour although that doesn't include St. Peter's itself (just the museum, sistene chapel, etc.). I think those are about 2 hours.

This small taste tour you mentioned has to be purchased way before. It sound like op just wants to walk up and wait. That’s not happening. Also, it’s not just a 2-3 hr commitment any longer. They need to plan for more time.

OP here: to clarify, no, I do not intend to walk up and wait anywhere. If we opt to go inside the major sites, then I'll secure tickets or line up a private tour ahead of time (like, soon).

I was hoping to hear from people who haven't felt obligated to schedule multiple tours and still had a great time. I'd like to hear how they spent their time.

But I realize this is DCUM, and I suspect most people feel compelled to see and do everything.

I’ve spent a cumulative total of several months in Rome over several years and know the city well. I also tend to be a walker and and a spontaneous wanderer when I travel. But the bolded is so obnoxious and nasty that I don’t want to help at all. Ridiculous behavior.

[Anonymous]

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).

Running has nothing to do with it. The sites do not care if you are a runner.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

I realize you need tix ahead of time. I meant my family would take a vote this weekend to determine if we want to get tix before the trip and plan to carve out what seems to be half a day to do that tour. One kid already said they'd rather tour the Vatican/Sistine Chapel/St. Peter's than spend half the day at the Colosseum. I agree. Having watched videos on it, I feel like we would be fine walking around it, enjoying the view from outside, and moving on. We can do that during the day or evening since it's a 15 min walk from our hotel.

I'm hoping to hear from some folks who have a slightly less rigid approach to travel. I understand that many families might opt to spend the better part of a week doing formal tours of the major sites in Rome, but that's not what we hope to do.

Anyone else take a less structured approach to travel?

I’ve spent a ton of time in Rome and tend to be a less scheduled traveler. But frankly, if you will be in Rome in the high season, you do need tickets. It sounds like you understand that but just know you won’t get in the Colosseum if you just show up. It’s not a great place to walk around outside, FWIW. It’s a trafficky mess, not a great place to walk. The best part of the Colosseum is the inside.

If you are going in October — a fabulous time to visit Rome — you can be much more lackadaisical and spontaneous.

When are you going?

OP has responded maybe 5 times but not answered this simple and very relevant question that multiple.people have asked.

But has noted that everyone in the family are runners.

OP is pretty ridiculous. Family of runners. 🙄

[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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

Disagree. We did a "small taste" tour of the Vatican that was either 2 or 3 hours that started before it opened to the public. They took us through the museums and showed us highlights with an art historian. We then went into the Sistene Chapel. Then the plaza area where the Pope speaks (I'm such a lousy Catholic -- can't remember what that's called!). Then St. Peter's itself, where she pointed out the highlights and then left us to spend as much or little time as we wanted. My husband and kids went home after that. I stayed to wander around the church a bit, debated going to mass, then decided to walk around Vatican City for a bit and have pastries, then walk back to our hotel near Piazza Navona and was back for a late lunch. That was all very do-able.

If your family is not an early morning family (we did the pre-opening tour), I would suggest the after-hours tour although that doesn't include St. Peter's itself (just the museum, sistene chapel, etc.). I think those are about 2 hours.

This small taste tour you mentioned has to be purchased way before. It sound like op just wants to walk up and wait. That’s not happening. Also, it’s not just a 2-3 hr commitment any longer. They need to plan for more time.

OP here: to clarify, no, I do not intend to walk up and wait anywhere. If we opt to go inside the major sites, then I'll secure tickets or line up a private tour ahead of time (like, soon).

I was hoping to hear from people who haven't felt obligated to schedule multiple tours and still had a great time. I'd like to hear how they spent their time.

But I realize this is DCUM, and I suspect most people feel compelled to see and do everything.

I’ve spent a cumulative total of several months in Rome over several years and know the city well. I also tend to be a walker and and a spontaneous wanderer when I travel. But the bolded is so obnoxious and nasty that I don’t want to help at all. Ridiculous behavior.

Yeah I don't understand this desire to create this straw man argument by OP so they can show how much more chill (but fit!) they are.

[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.

Why couldn't we walk 15 mins from our hotel to the Collosseum---maybe line up a tour ahead of time (we will take a vote on that)---and then walk back in the direction of Palatine Hill or Trevi or some such? I thought everyone walked around Rome?

Debating on how to handle St. Peter's and/or the Vatican. Most families I know who have been reported that their kids either felt overwhelmed by the crowd OR quickly lost interest. I'm wondering if there is a less hectic approach to just get a small taste rather than the whole enchilada?

I cannot stress to you enough on how you absolutely should not just arrive at the collosseum and think you can just line up for a tour ahead of time. You will never and I mean never get in that way. There is no small taste of the Vatican or St. Peter’s that you can do.
You really are not aware at all. I don’t think you understand.

Disagree. We did a "small taste" tour of the Vatican that was either 2 or 3 hours that started before it opened to the public. They took us through the museums and showed us highlights with an art historian. We then went into the Sistene Chapel. Then the plaza area where the Pope speaks (I'm such a lousy Catholic -- can't remember what that's called!). Then St. Peter's itself, where she pointed out the highlights and then left us to spend as much or little time as we wanted. My husband and kids went home after that. I stayed to wander around the church a bit, debated going to mass, then decided to walk around Vatican City for a bit and have pastries, then walk back to our hotel near Piazza Navona and was back for a late lunch. That was all very do-able.

If your family is not an early morning family (we did the pre-opening tour), I would suggest the after-hours tour although that doesn't include St. Peter's itself (just the museum, sistene chapel, etc.). I think those are about 2 hours.

This small taste tour you mentioned has to be purchased way before. It sound like op just wants to walk up and wait. That’s not happening. Also, it’s not just a 2-3 hr commitment any longer. They need to plan for more time.

OP here: to clarify, no, I do not intend to walk up and wait anywhere. If we opt to go inside the major sites, then I'll secure tickets or line up a private tour ahead of time (like, soon).

I was hoping to hear from people who haven't felt obligated to schedule multiple tours and still had a great time. I'd like to hear how they spent their time.

But I realize this is DCUM, and I suspect most people feel compelled to see and do everything.

I’ve spent a cumulative total of several months in Rome over several years and know the city well. I also tend to be a walker and and a spontaneous wanderer when I travel. But the bolded is so obnoxious and nasty that I don’t want to help at all. Ridiculous behavior.

Yeah I don't understand this desire to create this straw man argument by OP so they can show how much more chill (but fit!) they are.

It is certainly silly behavior, true.

[Anonymous]

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.

Np
These people are there for only 2 days. You lived there. Of course you walked around all the time.

What does that mean?

Most tourists opt to walk everywhere. Why not?

If we end up booking tours, they will be private tours with private drivers (e.g., hotel to Vatican).

Oh my God! Why are you asking people who have knowledge if you just want to do what you want or do. Go, knock yourself out.

[Anonymous]

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.