Tell me what to do for two days in Rome

[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 simply contrarian to what others recommend. Why did you ask for others opinions? You also nsme call because you don’t agree with something. Dcmania. That would be you.

[Anonymous]

After skimming Rick Steves, here are the highlights...which are seemingly do-able for him and his demographic:

On the first day, see the Colosseum (book ahead or just admire from afar) to the Roman Forum, then over Capitoline Hill (visiting the Capitoline Museums), and on to the Pantheon. After a siesta, add some sightseeing to suit your interest. In the evening enjoy a sound-and-light show at the Imperial Forums and/or a colorful stroll in Trastevere or the Monti district.

On the second day, see Vatican City (St. Peter's, dome climb, tour the Vatican Museums). Have dinner near the atmospheric Campo de' Fiori, and then walk to the Trevi Fountain and Spanish Steps (following my guidebooks' Heart of Rome Walk — also available as a free audio tour). With a third day, add the Borghese Gallery (reservations required) and more sights.

All seems very do-able if you want to hit the popular sites.

[Anonymous]

Just do as the Romans do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just do as the Romans do

And?

[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 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.

In 2019! What's wrong with everyone? I know who OP is, I am very like OP, and it's possible to enjoy cities this way. It's actually very enjoyable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

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

Thanks! This is very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

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

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

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

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

You are simply contrarian to what others recommend. Why did you ask for others opinions? You also nsme call because you don’t agree with something. Dcmania. That would be you.

Well, I suppose I am being contrarian to the posters who have basically said don't bother going because I'm clueless and there's no point in going unless I book tickets/tours and go inside all the destinations.

But, in my defense, the flights are booked and we have two days in Rome, so I'd like to make the best of it.

Again: I posted with the hope that people who have actually enjoyed Rome in a more low-key way would make suggestions about what might be the best place to invest time in fully seeing AND also suggest how to approach a couple days of walking around and having fun.

[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.

+1

I found the historic center to be decently condensed so as to be easy to walk from different sites (Colosseum, Palatine Hill, Forum, Campo dei Fiori, Pantheon, etc), and this was also in 90 degree temps. This would obviously depend on your own fitness level, and we didn’t have our kids with us either. Otherwise, we just cabbed occasionally (Vatican City, Trastevere), but walked the vast majority of time.

[Anonymous]

(also I went to Rome with my cousins, who live in Europe and go to Rome often, sometimes just to eat pasta and enjoy the beautiful light and atmosphere. So I took on that perspective while there and it was just awesome.)

[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 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.

In 2019! What's wrong with everyone? I know who OP is, I am very like OP, and it's possible to enjoy cities this way. It's actually very enjoyable.

That was before covid and it’s not the same since. Did you not see the news last summer about the hordes of people? The issue at the collesseum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

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

Thanks! This is very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

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

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

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

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

You are simply contrarian to what others recommend. Why did you ask for others opinions? You also nsme call because you don’t agree with something. Dcmania. That would be you.

Well, I suppose I am being contrarian to the posters who have basically said don't bother going because I'm clueless and there's no point in going unless I book tickets/tours and go inside all the destinations.

But, in my defense, the flights are booked and we have two days in Rome, so I'd like to make the best of it.

Again: I posted with the hope that people who have actually enjoyed Rome in a more low-key way would make suggestions about what might be the best place to invest time in fully seeing AND also suggest how to approach a couple days of walking around and having fun.

No one said there was no point in going if you don’t book tours. You are lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

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

Thanks! This is very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

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

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

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

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

You are simply contrarian to what others recommend. Why did you ask for others opinions? You also nsme call because you don’t agree with something. Dcmania. That would be you.

Well, I suppose I am being contrarian to the posters who have basically said don't bother going because I'm clueless and there's no point in going unless I book tickets/tours and go inside all the destinations.

But, in my defense, the flights are booked and we have two days in Rome, so I'd like to make the best of it.

Again: I posted with the hope that people who have actually enjoyed Rome in a more low-key way would make suggestions about what might be the best place to invest time in fully seeing AND also suggest how to approach a couple days of walking around and having fun.

Cool, what month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go out in Trastevere, etc.

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

Thanks! This is very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, this got really DCUM :0)

But I'll play.

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

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

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

Anyway, that's DCUMlandia for ya.

You are simply contrarian to what others recommend. Why did you ask for others opinions? You also nsme call because you don’t agree with something. Dcmania. That would be you.

Well, I suppose I am being contrarian to the posters who have basically said don't bother going because I'm clueless and there's no point in going unless I book tickets/tours and go inside all the destinations.

But, in my defense, the flights are booked and we have two days in Rome, so I'd like to make the best of it.

Again: I posted with the hope that people who have actually enjoyed Rome in a more low-key way would make suggestions about what might be the best place to invest time in fully seeing AND also suggest how to approach a couple days of walking around and having fun.

No one said there was no point in going if you don’t book tours. You are lying.

+1. It was strongly recommended that you book tours. Absolutely no one said don’t go if you don’t book.

[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 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.

In 2019! What's wrong with everyone? I know who OP is, I am very like OP, and it's possible to enjoy cities this way. It's actually very enjoyable.

Thanks, 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 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.

In 2019! What's wrong with everyone? I know who OP is, I am very like OP, and it's possible to enjoy cities this way. It's actually very enjoyable.

Thanks, pp!

Hope you can make a Time Machine to go back to 2019. It hasn’t been the same since covid so you have no idea.

[Anonymous]

This walking tour would be great after touring Villa Borghese: it's a 90 minute to 2 hour walking tour hitting some good sites.

https://theromanguy.com/italy-travel-blog/italy-travel-blog/rome/how-to-do-a-diy-walking-tour-of-rome/