Rome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

You may have traveled all over the world, but you actually sound quite uncultured. In plenty of major cities there are hubs of local culture that don’t fit with how tourists believe that the local culture should look or behave. It sounds like you are shopping around for what you THINK is authentic, and you dismiss everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

You may have traveled all over the world, but you actually sound quite uncultured. In plenty of major cities there are hubs of local culture that don’t fit with how tourists believe that the local culture should look or behave. It sounds like you are shopping around for what you THINK is authentic, and you dismiss everything else.

+1. "I've been all over the world and every Hard Rock Cafe looks exactly the same!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go out of my way to go to Rome just for the Colosseum, but if you have an interest in art/architecture/history, you might want to consider doing a couple of days there on your way in/out of the country to see some highlights.

Me either. I've been twice and really there is just not that much to see. Sooooo many aggressive street vendors all dressed like gladiators. Then you just look at a ruin.

[Anonymous]

I had a nice time in Rome. Yes, it's crowded, but there's lots to do. I enjoyed a nighttime walk through the forum where they projected what the buildings would have looked like with lights.

https://www.viaggioneifori.it/en/

I also really enjoyed the food walking tour we did in Trastevere.

Also, just walking into random basilicas around Rome is actually quite interesting. My very Catholic aunt died the year before my trip to Rome so I lit candles for her in a few places (bring euro coins along to do this).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I’ve been to a long list of major cities. People who parrot what you say are stereotypical tourists. Means to travel does not equate to education, curiosity, and risk taking. When people begin saying things like “they all start feeling the same,” you typically find those to be checklist tourists who never learned how to explore without a guidebook. If you can’t find more than 3 days’ worth of things to see in Rome, that’s on you, not Rome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I spent a semester in Rome, but I have barely scratched its surface. As they say in Rome, "Non basta una vita," or "A lifetime is not enough." It is definitely not just another big city! It is not just like other cities. If this is your view of Rome, you've not really seen Rome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I spent a semester in Rome, but I have barely scratched its surface. As they say in Rome, "Non basta una vita," or "A lifetime is not enough." It is definitely not just another big city! It is not just like other cities. If this is your view of Rome, you've not really seen Rome.

This. I’ve been to Rome about 8 times. It wasn’t until the 7th-8th time that I scratched the surface and fell in love with the city. It’s an amazing place. The Coliseum is fine and worth a visit, but there’s so much to explore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go out of my way to go to Rome just for the Colosseum, but if you have an interest in art/architecture/history, you might want to consider doing a couple of days there on your way in/out of the country to see some highlights.

Me either. I've been twice and really there is just not that much to see. Sooooo many aggressive street vendors all dressed like gladiators. Then you just look at a ruin.

I was just there in October and while it was busy at the coliseum and the catacombs- I was pleasantly surprised by how buzzy and nice Rome has gotten. It is super clean and easy to navigate - we stayed in Trastavere and there was a lot less tourist tat spilling everywhere and there were absolutely no ppl dressed like gladiators. And for relaxing- there are so many lovely cafes up on the hills with lovely views. of course I love the mid sized towns as well but not cinque Terre- so gross and full of americans. much rather hike in the Mani in Greece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I’ve been to a long list of major cities. People who parrot what you say are stereotypical tourists. Means to travel does not equate to education, curiosity, and risk taking. When people begin saying things like “they all start feeling the same,” you typically find those to be checklist tourists who never learned how to explore without a guidebook. If you can’t find more than 3 days’ worth of things to see in Rome, that’s on you, not Rome.

Why the need to conclude that people with different ideas than your own are wrong, or somehow inferior?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I spent a semester in Rome, but I have barely scratched its surface. As they say in Rome, "Non basta una vita," or "A lifetime is not enough." It is definitely not just another big city! It is not just like other cities. If this is your view of Rome, you've not really seen Rome.

This. I’ve been to Rome about 8 times. It wasn’t until the 7th-8th time that I scratched the surface and fell in love with the city. It’s an amazing place. The Coliseum is fine and worth a visit, but there’s so much to explore.

With all there is to see in this world , I am not motivated to return and return to one city that reveals its true worth only after seven visits. Sorry but I am not that young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak :) from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities. :)

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world.. :)

I’ve been to a long list of major cities. People who parrot what you say are stereotypical tourists. Means to travel does not equate to education, curiosity, and risk taking. When people begin saying things like “they all start feeling the same,” you typically find those to be checklist tourists who never learned how to explore without a guidebook. If you can’t find more than 3 days’ worth of things to see in Rome, that’s on you, not Rome.

Why the need to conclude that people with different ideas than your own are wrong, or somehow inferior?

It’s perfectly valid to make judgements based on evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

They’ve been to Epcot - no need to see the rest of the world.

You smug idiots are do out of line. I have been ALL over the world. Large world capitals—with the exception of Africa and Asia—share a certain homogeneity. Many of us prefer smaller towns, which are often more true to a country’s traditions and roots.

That is a valid perspective. And you are an insufferable snob.

+1. DP.

Ironically most well travelled people recognize that most cities truly are just another big city. Doesn't mean it's less awesome in their own way but that almost always the big metros won't be as captivating than the unbeaten path or even a less well known city.

When you've been to a long list of major cities, you get that. It's actually the ones who don't travel as often who feel like every major city is spectacular. Unfortunately they're not. I happen to like Rome a lot but on my long list of cities I'd stay in the world for more than 3 days, it's not on it, sorry. There's a lot of beautiful places in the world..

I spent a semester in Rome, but I have barely scratched its surface. As they say in Rome, "Non basta una vita," or "A lifetime is not enough." It is definitely not just another big city! It is not just like other cities. If this is your view of Rome, you've not really seen Rome.

This. I’ve been to Rome about 8 times. It wasn’t until the 7th-8th time that I scratched the surface and fell in love with the city. It’s an amazing place. The Coliseum is fine and worth a visit, but there’s so much to explore.

With all there is to see in this world , I am not motivated to return and return to one city that reveals its true worth only after seven visits. Sorry but I am not that young.

I'm not the person you're responding to, but I'm the PP who studied abroad in Rome. I was fascinated by Rome immediately, but I think you're taking the whole discussion out of context. I was responding to the poster who said Rome was just like everywhere else and not worth a 3 day visit. Obviously I disagree, but I think it's perfectly fine not to be interested in Roman culture, history, and architecture. If you have no interest in ancient history, the early church, Baroque architecture, etc. then I imagine that Rome would be boring for you. I don't think anyone should go to any city just to tick off a box - that is definitely the wrong way to travel. I also have a suspicion that Rome will not be of any real interest to the OP/OP's daughter. In my experience, people who go to Rome just to see one or two landmarks, such as the Colosseum, should probably not go at all. You'll be happier spending your time and money doing something you really want to do, even if that's just going to a beach, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm prob in the minority but no, I wouldn't priories Rome other than the colosseum and if I'm being brutally honest, it was more disappointing as I had higher hopes and yes I did the underground tour of it in addition to the best tour I could find for the top level.

I've been to other places I loved more but I do agree that any history buff would want to see. For me, Venice is the can't miss opportunity.

Rome is like Athens - if you're limited on time, you hit the big spots in 1-2 days max and move forward from there. The unfortunate thing for anyone is there's l mites time to really soak anything up when traveling..

As much as I love experiencing new things, part of going on holiday is the pleasure of just sitting and enjoying the scenery so to speak from that perspective I don't want to tour every minute. It rather relax and indulge in me time hahaha.

Rome is like any other big city and I agree that if you go and stay a day, other sights are as meaningful. There are few big cities in this world I find utterly thrilling but Rome is not one of them as cool as it is. The real jewels aren't the huge cities but the kinda big cities.

Rome is like any other big city….

Yikes! I think this thread has been an excellent example how poorly educated many Americans are.

You don't have to go all the way to the Dolomites to see an Alpine Lake, but, this seems to be what OP wants to do. I guess everyone has their priorities.