Tell me what to do for two days in Rome

[Anonymous]

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 spent two days in Rome and I definitely strolled to these places in one day (colleseum, trevi fountain, st peters basilica). It's a great walking city.

The only indoor must see, for me, was the Sistine Chapel.

We also did a 2 hour walking tour and it was gorgeous. Spanish steps, etc. lots of gelato.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'll add that you sound like me. I loved my time in Rome. The only thing I scheduled ahead of time was the Sistine Chapel.... The other site I was totally happy to see the outside of. I wandered around with a close friend talking, with all these majestic sites in the background, and I felt like I was in Before Sunrise.

Ate lots of incredible foods -- pasta of course, pizza. Went shopping for leather goods.

Absolutely loved my weekend there. You don't need to overbook yourself to enjoy Rome.

[Anonymous]

Villa Borghese is amazing and not crowded and you can breeze right through it w kids. TBH the first thing we did when we got there was a golf cart tour of the city which hit all the big spots and was a beautiful way to see the colosseum at night. Short and sweet and the tour guide was super knowledgeable. You can wander down Via del Corso (shopping) down to the cafes on the Piazza del Poppolo where there is often music and street performers. Garden Breakfast/Brunch in the Hotel de La Russie is wonderful (you need reservations) and kids will love the pizza at Emma!

[Anonymous]

(we booked a photographer for 2 hours on Airbnb to take photos of us, and he ended taking us a walking tour of the most beautiful sites, and we had gorgeous pictures by the end of it.)

[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).

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

Okay.

I added that bit of information because another poster had commented that you CAN walk all around Rome as long as nobody in your party is disabled (or presumably elderly or a little one who will tire easily). It's not a brag, just a fact: my kids are runners/athletes, so they aren't apt to complain about walking...especially if we walk 15 mins to the Colosseum, enjoy the outside for a bit, and then have a route planned to another site and can shop or eat along the way.

I commute to DC everyday and see tourists who are runners stepping out of a hotel for their morning run. It's pretty normal. We won't run in Rome (too crowded), but we will walk.

Heck, we've had great times walking around other cities in the pouring rain!

I guess I just feel like you get the best sense of a place when you walk as much as possible. The touristy places tend to have the over-priced, touristy restaurants and you need to get into the sidestreets and neighborhoods to find the better food and shopping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(we booked a photographer for 2 hours on Airbnb to take photos of us, and he ended taking us a walking tour of the most beautiful sites, and we had gorgeous pictures by the end of it.)

That's brilliant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Villa Borghese is amazing and not crowded and you can breeze right through it w kids. TBH the first thing we did when we got there was a golf cart tour of the city which hit all the big spots and was a beautiful way to see the colosseum at night. Short and sweet and the tour guide was super knowledgeable. You can wander down Via del Corso (shopping) down to the cafes on the Piazza del Poppolo where there is often music and street performers. Garden Breakfast/Brunch in the Hotel de La Russie is wonderful (you need reservations) and kids will love the pizza at Emma!

Super helpful! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'll add that you sound like me. I loved my time in Rome. The only thing I scheduled ahead of time was the Sistine Chapel.... The other site I was totally happy to see the outside of. I wandered around with a close friend talking, with all these majestic sites in the background, and I felt like I was in Before Sunrise.

Ate lots of incredible foods -- pasta of course, pizza. Went shopping for leather goods.

Absolutely loved my weekend there. You don't need to overbook yourself to enjoy Rome.

Thank you, pp!

[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.

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.

Okay.

I added that bit of information because another poster had commented that you CAN walk all around Rome as long as nobody in your party is disabled (or presumably elderly or a little one who will tire easily). It's not a brag, just a fact: my kids are runners/athletes, so they aren't apt to complain about walking...especially if we walk 15 mins to the Colosseum, enjoy the outside for a bit, and then have a route planned to another site and can shop or eat along the way.

I commute to DC everyday and see tourists who are runners stepping out of a hotel for their morning run. It's pretty normal. We won't run in Rome (too crowded), but we will walk.

Heck, we've had great times walking around other cities in the pouring rain!

I guess I just feel like you get the best sense of a place when you walk as much as possible. The touristy places tend to have the over-priced, touristy restaurants and you need to get into the sidestreets and neighborhoods to find the better food and shopping.

Oh for heaven’s sakes.

I actually have family in Rome and have spent a ton of time there, and know the hidden spots, but just can’t get over OPs bizarre self-importance. Athletic kids. 🤦‍♀️

[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.

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.

Okay.

I added that bit of information because another poster had commented that you CAN walk all around Rome as long as nobody in your party is disabled (or presumably elderly or a little one who will tire easily). It's not a brag, just a fact: my kids are runners/athletes, so they aren't apt to complain about walking...especially if we walk 15 mins to the Colosseum, enjoy the outside for a bit, and then have a route planned to another site and can shop or eat along the way.

I commute to DC everyday and see tourists who are runners stepping out of a hotel for their morning run. It's pretty normal. We won't run in Rome (too crowded), but we will walk.

Heck, we've had great times walking around other cities in the pouring rain!

I guess I just feel like you get the best sense of a place when you walk as much as possible. The touristy places tend to have the over-priced, touristy restaurants and you need to get into the sidestreets and neighborhoods to find the better food and shopping.

Oh for heaven’s sakes.

I actually have family in Rome and have spent a ton of time there, and know the hidden spots, but just can’t get over OPs bizarre self-importance. Athletic kids. 🤦‍♀️

Also still no response on time of year. Amazing.

[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 spent two days in Rome and I definitely strolled to these places in one day (colleseum, trevi fountain, st peters basilica). It's a great walking city.

The only indoor must see, for me, was the Sistine Chapel.

We also did a 2 hour walking tour and it was gorgeous. Spanish steps, etc. lots of gelato.

In 1979.

[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).

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

Okay.

I added that bit of information because another poster had commented that you CAN walk all around Rome as long as nobody in your party is disabled (or presumably elderly or a little one who will tire easily). It's not a brag, just a fact: my kids are runners/athletes, so they aren't apt to complain about walking...especially if we walk 15 mins to the Colosseum, enjoy the outside for a bit, and then have a route planned to another site and can shop or eat along the way.

I commute to DC everyday and see tourists who are runners stepping out of a hotel for their morning run. It's pretty normal. We won't run in Rome (too crowded), but we will walk.

Heck, we've had great times walking around other cities in the pouring rain!

I guess I just feel like you get the best sense of a place when you walk as much as possible. The touristy places tend to have the over-priced, touristy restaurants and you need to get into the sidestreets and neighborhoods to find the better food and shopping.

Oh for heaven’s sakes.

I actually have family in Rome and have spent a ton of time there, and know the hidden spots, but just can’t get over OPs bizarre self-importance. Athletic kids. 🤦‍♀️

Also still no response on time of year. Amazing.

And I actually agree with OPs general view on walking as a primary way to see/get to know a place, and going down side streets, etc. Did a 4 day trip to Paris years ago with a friend, and one of the days we set aside purely to wander, with a couple of cafes we flagged as waypoints to set a general direction. But that was in fall in Paris, with temps around 60. I wouldn't do that in Rome between June-August in the same way.

[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.

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.

[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.

You are incredibly rude and obnoxious. You are the dcumania.