This isn't my normal board, so I haven't formally introduced myself, yet.
But, Hi! I'm RP, and I am getting married near Pisa, Italy in July. We plan on hitting up Florence for a day or two while we're there and after we get married, we plan on going to either Rome or the Almafi Coast, or maybe both (depending on how much time we have to take off).
I did a search on Rome on this board, and I didn't see a post that answers my question, but maybe I didn't go back far enough? If so, and you can share a link, that'd be great!
How much time would you recommend spending in Rome?
When I went to Spain a few years ago, I spent WAY more time than I needed in Madrid and since we're trying to see as much as we can on this trip, I would like to avoid that this time around.
I think it depends a lot on your interests. If you're into art or history, you can easily fill 5 days with all the museums, churches, and historic sites. If you're not that interested in museums or art, you can see the highlights in 2-3 days.
We just went over Easter, and we were there for 4 days (arrived Easter morning, left Thursday morning). I'd never been before but I felt like we did all of the big things we wanted to do without running around like chickens with our heads cut off, and we squeezed in a day trip to Orvieto Monday since a lot of things in the city were going to be closed.
Two things we did that saved us waiting in gigantic lines were arranging a semi-private tour of the Vatican museum (through Walks Inside Rome), and making an appointment for the Colosseum underground/upper level tour.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. Mark Twain
We were just there at the end of August for 3 days. We saw the main stuff, and still had time to wander to a few places and explore. We weren't running ourselves ragged non-stop. With that said, we certainly could have stayed an extra day and not been anywhere close to bored. So 3-4 days? I can't imagine only having 2 days, and then at other end of the spectrum, I'm sure art or history buffs could easily spend a week.
ETA: We didn't have a tour of the Vatican, but we did skip the lines by purchasing our tickets ahead of time. We also did the above mentioned tour at the Colosseum.
It depends on what you like. I was a history major in college with a special interest in archaeology, so... there is so such thing as enough time in Rome for me. We were there for 6 days a few years ago and it was not enough. Just to hit the highlights I would think you would want at least 3 days (Vatican, Colosseum/Forum, churches/museums/gardens).
Post by spunkarella on Oct 9, 2014 18:01:55 GMT -5
We just came back from spending four days there. It was enough to see the highlights without running around like crazy, but I would have liked to stay longer to spend more time hanging around in the squares, and maybe see some smaller sights and take a day trip. I expected to love Rome, but I LOVED Rome. No way to know that beforehand.
Rome was the last city we visited in Italy, and we spent 2-3 days. By that point in the trip, I was feeling a little museum'ed out. Antiquities, art, and Roman history are not my particular brand of vodka, so after Florence, Venice, and a couple other cities, it didn't take much in Rome for me to feel sated. I probably could've gone longer if it was at the beginning of the trip, and I definitely could've spent a ton more time if it was something I was really interested in.
We went a few years ago during peak season. I second buying tickets online beforehand (or getting a tour) to avoid lines. We did a hop-on-hop-off-generic-site-see day (Spanish steps, Trevi fountain, Pantheon, Parliament), then an ancient day (Forum, Palace, Colosseum), then a Vatican day (Basilica, museum, dome, basement), and then a day with a bike ride along the river and through the Borghese gardens). We also had one day where we did a full day trip (on our own) to Pompeii. It felt like enough time in the city. What I wish I had done differently was spent more time at each place. We were with family and felt rushed.
We're pretty efficient tourists, and we felt that 3.5 days (with one of those days spent on a day trip to Orvieto) was more than enough. But we were there in late June and it was super hot, crowded, and noisy there which definitely made us not so thrilled with it (I liked it better on a prior trip with my family when it wasn't as hot or crowded). I think Rome is a must-see but I don't like it enough to see it as a must-linger.
My sister-in-law, on the other hand, has gone on week-long trips to Rome like 3 times in the past 5 years so opinions definitely vary
As newlyweds in the mood for romance, I'd skip Rome and go straight to the Amalfi coast. Or do like 2 days in Rome on one of those bus tours and see the highlights and continue on south. Rome is old and full of art and crumbly streets and fountains. The Amalfi coast is beautiful.
I agree with sent; Rome is a fascinating city, but not a very romantic one. I absolutely think it's worth visiting someday, but for your honeymoon, if you can swing the Amalfi coast, I would do that.
That said, we spent four full days in Rome and felt that was enough to fit in everything.
Oh, just an FYI (in case this is at all important to you), the Trevi fountain and the Spanish steps are basically out of commission right now. So, ya know, if you had grand plans of spending leisurely time in the evening by the glow of the Trevi fountain, you can skip it. It's bone dry and covered in scaffolding.