I'm not nearly as experienced at travel as the others on this board, but we just got back from a trip that included Italy (and Paris) and lots of packing and unpacking. Packing and unpacking is not nearly the hassle you may think it is, esp. if you travel light. Rome is wonderful, but you have budgeted a lot of days there. We were totally floored by Naples, and we were only there for a day, nowhere near enough. You could easily spend one or 2 days in Naples plus a whole day at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Naples was the most "exotic"-feeling place on our whole trip, but Venice was a close second!

<"Naples was the most "exotic"-feeling place on our whole trip, but Venice was a close second!">

Never heard it expressed that way.

The only thing I found exotic about Naples was their mozzarella buffalo, fresh ripe tomatoes, fresh basil, and a drizzle of olive oil with a pinch of salt. An appetizer to die for. ((b))

I guess it's all cultural upbringing. my mom was born in Naples and still today, my favorite summer meal is the salad of tomatoes, basel, buffalo mozzarella, but, I add chopped garlic and red onion slices, I alternate, a round of tomatoe, a round of the cheese, and of the onion what a beauty of a plate!

JeanneB:

Paris is my absolutely favorite city in the world, but one has to expand one's European horizons. Those churches and pieces of stone lying around on the ground in Rome can be inspiring. I'll admit that in my 3 trips to Rome I never felt the kind of "kinship" I feel for Paris, but I was interested and impressed. It's hard not to be when confronted with the Roman Forum, the Colliseum, the Pantheon, etc. Plus, the little squares, the fountains, etc. I found myself absolutely entranced last time in Rome with a piece of rock with a Latin inscription, trying to translate it after taking Latin for 11 years in school. And after hours, when the sightseeing is done, dining in Rome is a real treat.
That said, I don't think I'd allot 5-6 days to Rome. I think 3-4 would be sufficient. You could head south or inland.
Regarding the Vatican museums, as interesting as they are, I personally despise them. How can the Catholic Church countenance hording such treasures while millions of Catholics, and others, live in abject poverty?
Rome is chaotic and beautifully defiant. Whether you will like it or not will depend on your ability to adapt and see it in its historical context.

Yeez, I never thought I would have to agree with Mellen. I mentioned that long ago. The Catholic church really needs to take stock of what they have and distribute it to the needy.

StCirq, you got a good point there.

I think the French should sell off all those thingys in the Louvre to help alleviate world poverty. Those selfish French.

That's what I think. ((a)) ((b))

Ooops ! I missed that winter thing.

My :02 Lira: I think you should skip Rome, if you already think it is old stones and churches why do you think you would want to spend 5 or 6 nights there. I can't see why you would want to visit some place because "you should".

I think you have planned the rest of your trip wisely, why not add Assisi or Venice and skip Rome until the next time. At least that is what I would do.

I didn't see London until after I had been all over Great Britain and Ireland, I appreciated it more after see the other places first.

(Also, you can't compare Paris with Rome, the only thing they have in common is that they are big cities in Europe)

There's only one way to know for certain whether or not you'll like Rome (and please discount all the "pillars of Western Civilzation," "haut-bourgeois," and other Fodorite-on-steroids "characterizations" designed to send you on a guilt trip)...you have to GO THERE and find out, once and for all, for yourself.

If everyone adored the place as much as you've heard then everyone would be living there I suppose.

I think if you go you'll end up being impressed.

If you don't go..well, you'll end up wondering if you made a mistake.

topman...i don't think i was trying to guilt her into feeling like she had to see rome. if you read my post it says just the opposite. everyone has different interests and if you are not interested in history then rome becomes much less of a "must-see".

by her description of "stones on the ground", i see she has little or no interest in archeaology (which is fine). So then, why go to rome instead of going somewhere where your interests lie?

so as you can see, i'm more inclined to suggest skipping rome than trying to make her feel like she has to see go because it is historically significant.

I went to Italy for my first trip in November 2001. I only had 1 week so I chose to go to Rome for half the week and Florence for the other half. I decided to save Rome for last because I thought I would love it so much more than Florence, afterall it is Rome.

I spent my 4 nights in Florence and loved it. Went to Rome, spent 1 night and returned to Florence and explored tuscany a bit. I was disappointed with Rome and didn't care for it. Yes I liked certain things about it (S. Pietro is wonderful, fori romani, etc.) but I didn't care for the overall-ness of Rome.

All of my friends here in Italy (I now live in Italy) think I am crazy because everyone else seems to love Rome. I have returned to Rome 4 more times (twice with local Romani friends) since that first visit and still don't care for it much. It's strange, I know. I keep returning hoping that I will find something that makes me really love Rome but nothing yet. I hope something soon strikes me because I most likely will be moving there to live in summer, 2005 (because of my fiance's job).

To Jeanne, it is good you are traveling in February as you can get out of Rome after only 1 night if you don't care for it. You are right - finding hotels will be easy at the last minute.

I am one of those who love Paris and Rome. You will not be sorry if you stay 5 days. Rome is an incredibly vibrant city with so much to see and do. On the other hand, 3 days in Siena and 3 in Montalcino in the winter might seem like a long time. Have you considered cutting back on Tuscany and adding Venice? In the winter, you want to be someplace where you have the option to do your sightseeing inside should the weather require.

I went to Italy twice before including Rome. I do not love Rome in the heartfelt way that I do adore Paris and Venice; the latter two I actually feel "homesick" for sometimes. BUT, even if you don't love it down to your toes, I suspect you will like it very much and in fact after 5 days there I felt that I'd shortchanged it and hope to go back in the next year to see and do more.

Traffic is scary and the Vespa noise pretty persistent (and I'm from NYC, hardly a tranquil place). But you see art masterpieces in almost every church, and there's a church, it seems, on every street. There's also an amazing juxtaposition of the ancient with the new. The Romans borrowed architecture from the Greeks, and really put the knowledge to good use.
Medieval architecture, not so much--there was a lot of 'sacking' going on.
Renaissance and Baroque--ah, definitely yes.

I highly recommend a guided tour or two. My preferred organization is Scala Reale for all the reasons you'll read about--educated but entertaining tour guides who are mostly native English-speakers; a reasonable pace; and
included extras like restaurant recommendations, maps and info left for you at your hotel, an Orientation 'hike', etc.
Whichever organization you choose, the two areas for which they really come in handy are the Vatican, and the Forum/Colosseum.

All:

Well, I knew I was opening a can of worms when I posted this thread. I anticipated that some would interpret my wording as an indication that I "have no interest in history" or archeology. In fact, my knowledge of, interest in, and appreciation for history go much deeper than my post indicated.. I attended Catholic schools, thus I received an especially in-depth grounding in the history of Western Civ and the Church.

That said, it has little to do with my query. When we were in Paris, we probably covered at least 12 miles a day on foot. Our greatest pleasure was just walking through the streets, stopping at interesting shops or cafes, and taking in the beauty of the city. All the while I was constantly reminded of Haussman's destruction of so much of the city to lay the way for what we were seeing. That is not to say we didn't thoroughly enjoy the Louvre, the D'Orsay, the cathedrals and churches and the "history" of Paris. I was simply trying to express what I guess one would call our "emotional" response to Paris. Would we feel that in Rome? My reading for the trip has given me the answer for Tuscany and Florence (yes!), but Rome has eluded me.

There's only one way to find out. This thread has helped me get to a decision. We'll plan 4 or 5 nights in Rome. We may switch it around to do Rome last, availing ourselves of the chance to absorb impressions of Rome and "favorite spots" from those we meet along the way in Tuscany.

This is always the hardest part of the trip...deciding what to leave off. Once that decision is made, everything else falls into place. Thank you, everyone, for your input.

Jeanne...I think most people understood the point of your post and what you are asking. The thing is, the only way you will find out about Rome and how you feel about it is to go there and spend some time. Like I say, it' just didn't "grab" me. On the other hand, I just loved Venice, my time there was way too short, and all I know is I am compelled to get back there and spend some time. I also just love Paris and London. Why? Who knows. On the other hand, my brother, who I was traveling with, would rather have a root canal that ever go back to Paris. It's something you just can't explain, you just are drawn to the place or you aren't. The thing I did find however is, even if I wasn't partiularly drawn to a particular place, there was always something of value to be gained by having been there, and also something to enjoy. I just don't thing there is anyway anyone can go wrong visiting different places and cultures. There is always something to be gained by it. Your trip sounds wonderful and I am sure you are going to enjoy every minute of it.

I'm trying to unravel the mystery to the attraction of a city. Looks like this topic is debated often here. It seems like people don't like Rome because it is a bit gritty, dirty and noisy like NYC. The overall "scenery" (images) are not always picturesque in a postcardish way.


<i>Jeanne: Our greatest pleasure was just walking through the streets, stopping at interesting shops or cafes, and taking in the beauty of the city. </i>

It seems like people who like Paris are also interested in shops and cafes.

<i> Crefloors: On the other hand, I just loved Venice, my time there was way too short, and all I know is I am compelled to get back there and spend some time. </i>

I'm very curious why you say this. Please share why you would be compelled to go back to Venice.

Thanks!

kakalena

Forget the guide books and forget Paris! Wander around the Piazza di Spagna and the medieval lanes around Piazza Navona and the Pantheon, take in the view of Rome from the Pincio, get a taste of &quot;La Dolce Vita&quot; in the Via Veneto.... Rome is so much more than ruins and churches!

This is not a scientific answer, or even grossly opinionated. I absolutely love Paris, have been several times and would go back in a heartbeat. Rome was very underwhelming for me for several reasons, which I won't itemize. That said, Florence, which I visited on a different trip from Rome, really quenched my Paris-hunger for the time being, if you can believe that. It satisfied a craving...can't explain why or how exactly, but I got the same feeling there that I had in Paris, maybe on smaller city scale. Go figure!

Good luck in your decision...

Why go if it doesn't appeal to you? Skip it and go to the small towns instead. If it is your vacation do what you want.

I'm another one who didn't think I'd like Rome after just reading about it.
For that reason, I didn't go there until my third trip to Italy, and then I only went because I thought I &quot;should.&quot;

Well, I loved Rome! I thought it was a great city for walking, loved the food, loved the history, loved the surprises that seemed to be around every corner.

We're going back next month and spending a total of five nights in Rome, which I know won't be enough!

I'm also crazy about Paris, but I don't think you can compare the two cities at all. They're totally different.

I think it would be a mistake to not visit Rome because it doesn't appeal to you &quot;on paper.&quot; Your emotional reaction to it is hard to predict from that.

There's only one way to find out how you'll feel about it, and that's to give it a try. Then, if nothing else, you will have seen all the places you've heard about your whole life.