Only one or two days in Rome?
 

My husband and I have been planning a trip to Rome for 2006. Yesterday, he picked up Rick Steves Italy, and Rick Steves maintains that Rome should be done in a day or two at most, because the thieves are so prevalent. He even describes being able to look from a high point and see the thieves at work. He suggests doing Rome in one day and going to other cities instead. Now, we have never been to Rome, and I think it deserves a week, with maybe one side trip. I think 1 or 2 days is definitely not enough. Is Rick Steves being an alarmist or is his view of Rome accurate? My husband is concerned, but my point of view is that if it were so bad, people wouldn't go back again and again, as I know many do. What do you think?

Best,
Sandy

That's ridiculous and I don't think Rick Steves actually says that. He does discuss the problem of pickpockets in Rome (as he does for every major city in Europe) and how to avoid them. He also may say that he feels on a first trip you can get a taste of Rome in a couple of days and that he feels it's more enjoyable to visit other areas of Italy. And on those two points I agree. My first trip to Italy I did only 3 days (two nights) in Rome and was glad I had not scheduled any more time. I enjoyed Venice, Tuscany, Umbria and the Cinque Terre much more than I did Rome. I also feel I did get a taste of Rome in those few days. Some day I'll probably go back, and you could certainly spend a week there and find plenty to do. It depends on what else you want to do on your trip, how long you have, what your interests are, etc. But to avoid it just because of the pickpockets is silly.

Though others will differ, I am in the camp that two or three days in Rome is adequate. My first visit there was ill-timed (July - heat and tourist hordes) and I left after one day. On subsequent visits in better weather I found that two nights was about optimal.

Every large European city has pickpockets and Rome is no exception. However, during my last four or five visits since 2000, I've noticed that there have been no gangs of children with cardboard as there used to be. I have no idea where Rick Steves could be standing to watch gangs of theives at work.
Rome is a wonderful city; one I return to on each of my many visits to Italy. Sometimes I go to only Rome for a week or two. I still haven't seen it all and probably never will. I think to get a good introduction to Rome, you need at least three full days, preferably four. I think with any less time, you just see it in a blur and are in danger of coming away with the impression that it is just another large, noisy, dirty city and miss so much of what makes it so special.

We were in Rome for 2 full days in March, and spent the 3rd day in Pompeii. Although Pompeii was wonderful, my husband and I agree that we should have spent that day in Rome as well. Rome is a wonderful city with so many different things to see. We are already planning another trip back and, from looking at the list of things we want to see, need to spend at least 3-4 full days.

I have the Rick Steves Italy guide and I think that he is referring to the fact that if you are short on time and want to see Rome, you can see the highlights of Rome in a few days if necessary. I would recommend at least 5 days, but I don't know if 7 would be necessary, unless you are planning a daytrip or two.

As far as pickpockets are concerned, we never saw any pickpockets nor did we feel unsafe at any time. However, because we were there in March, which is considered off-peak, the pickpockets may have been on a break! :)

I spent a week in Rome in April. I only scratched the surface. (Never saw any pickpockets or had any problem) I think Rome is one of those cities you go back to again and again to pick up where you left off. Like London and Paris.

That sounds incredibly silly to me! I'd give Rome at least three full days. Pickpockets are everywhere, even here in my hometown of Chicago. I can't believe Steves would recommend spending only a day or two in Rome. You could spend almost one full day just in the Vatican!

Give Rome as much time as you possibly can. It is a favorite city of ours and no matter how much time we spend there, we always find something new and different to see or do, as well as returning to places we particularly like.

On our first visit to Rome 10 years ago a friend was mobbed by young girls with a newspaper to distract him and his wallet stolen. We were able to recover the wallet and most of the contents. Since then we have had no experiences with pickpockets in Rome. Of course they exist, but that's no reason to stay away or limit your time there.

I think what RS says is that IF you only have a day or two, it can be done. He recommends three, I believe. My experience is that I usually need at least one more day than his itineraries allow for.

... I was all wrong about RS when I said he didn't have a sense of humor. I cannot believe he said that, but I refuse to give him any money just to find out. By the way, congrats on such long-term planning.

Have to agree with isabel....while Rome has its must-sees, I enjoyed visiting Sorrento, Florence and Assisi even more. I thought 3 days in Rome was plenty!

Hi sandy,

I agree with the above. Either 3-4 days at a minimum or skip it.

I would do one day in Rome only if I were flying out the next day.

There is so much that is wonderful to see and do in Italy - of course you could spend a day or two in Rome and still find plenty else to do. But don't. Rome is spectacular and could occupy you for a week or two. If this is your first trip to Italy, spend 4 or 5 days in Rome; you will be fine. In all of our trips to Rome (4), we have not had a problem with pickpockets. I think people are beginning to spend too much time listening to Rick Steves - if he says Rome can be done in a day, I certainly have no interest in his other advice. Go to Rome as you planned, and enjoy!

Please, please, please do not listen to Rick Steves about 1 day in Rome due to pickpockets. Get yourselves some GOOD guidebooks and read them. Return the Rick Steves to the store and get your money back!!! Hearing something like this angers me. Go to Rome...do not limit yourselves to a day or two. Minimum 5 days in Rome; preferably longer.

A good budget guidebook is Let's Go. Rick is a bozo!

What Rick Steves says is totally ridiculous.

You have to remember that Rick Steves' "thing" is to discover tiny hole-in-the-wall towns that are cheap, cheap, cheap. (He does make an exception for the Cinque Terre, and I think it might be one of the reasons that the Cinque Terre have become so overrun recently.) And he seems to scorn cities on principle. I saw his TV show on Venice, and it showed such a total lack of understanding of the city that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

You specifically say that you have been planning a trip to Rome. Presumably you are attracted by one or more of the following things: the history as revealed in the archeological ruins, the wealth of art and architecture, the bustling life of the city or its quiet, secluded corners, the possibility of choosing your own pace, whether to move around and see a great deal or to sit in a cafe and watch Roman life go on around you, the vast choice of restaurants, whether modest or more expensive -- the list could go on and on...

Yes, there is some street crime in Rome, but I agree with an earlier poster that the hordes of Gypsy children holding a cardboard sign of some kind that used to surround unsuspecting tourists are far less in evidence this year than they have been in the past. You do have to exercise a reasonable amount of care, and you should be particularly careful on the No. 64 bus (it travels between Roma Termini and St. Peter's), which is frequented by large numbers of pickpockets and other undesirables. Many Italians, moreover, if they see tourists being approached by potential pickpockets, will warn them.

Please do not allow Rick Steves to change your plans! Go for as long as you can or want to!

The Romans have a saying, "Per Roma non basta una vita," which translates roughly as "To know Rome, a lifetime is not long enough." I have been going to Rome almost annually for the past 30 years, and on my last stay in May, I STILL discovered wonderful places and things that I didn't know. So I have to agree with the Roman saying. In fact, I'm delighted to agree with it and look forward to my next stay there.

And just in case you should think me a Rome fanatic: Rome is never the only city I stay in when I am in Italy, and I have visited and know many other Italian regions and cities.

Six years ago, we read the same thing. Went anyway, even though we only had 2 nights (2.5 days). We were "concerned" about thieves due to the warning, and took care (wearing fanny packs in front, etc.), but NEVER had a problem.

2.5 days in Rome - 1 wandering around - Trevi Fountain, Spanish Steps, Via Veneto, etc. One at the Forum, Coliseum and the like. One-half at the Vatican. It's a good start!

I can't imagine doing any less than 3 full days in Rome. My first trip was a week, and there never was a dull moment. My 2nd trip was about 3.5 days. We took our kids to the major sites and did a day trip to Pompeii. There's still much more I'd like to see if ever I have the opportunity. I never had a problem with thieves, but for the 1st time, did see a 2 young women with babies who looked suspicious on a bus on our last day of the trip. Everyone was eyeing them and an Italian man cursed then out in Italian. They quickly and quietly got off the bus.

One of the travel-related things I regret most is spending only 3 days in Rome - three days don't do the city justice and as a result of running from one sight to another I was left with a rather chaotic impression of Rome. And with a yearning to return ... which I still after 10+ trips to Italy haven't been able to do ... did throw a coin in the Fontana di Trevi so I'm bound to make my way back one day! :)

Re: &quot;<i>Yesterday, he picked up Rick Steves Italy, and Rick Steves maintains that Rome should be done in a day or two at most, because the thieves are so prevalent.</i>&quot;

Really? I don't recall Steves saying that in his Italy book, but maybe I missed it.

In any case, I couldn't disagree more. I spent over a week in Rome on my first visit there three years ago and it still wasn't enough. A year later, I spent four more days in Rome.

Carry things you can't afford to lose -- as opposed to things like maps, etc. -- in a well-concealed place and you shouldn't have to worry about the Roman evildoers.

... finally, posters are not falling in blind obedience at the feet of traveller Steve. He finally proved he stuck his head out that train window once too often. Rome in a day! Hilarious.

Re: &quot;<i>He finally proved he stuck his head out that train window once too often.</i>&quot;

*LOL*!! I admit, that is one of the funniest things about his PBS series.

As for people &quot;falling in blind obedience&quot; to Steves, nice bit of hyperbole but I don't think that's the case, for most people anyway. I've used his books for years but also disagree with him on many things.

I still have a difficult time believing that said that about Rome, but will gladly accept having my skepticism countered by facts.

Of all the crazy things RS recommends, this is the second most ridiculous.

The top prize goes to his contention that you should save money by eating lunch standing up at some counter.

Doesn't he know that lunch is not only for food but for rest, too?

Byrd

Re: <i>The top prize goes to his contention that you should save money by eating lunch standing up at some counter.</i>

This is so funny. Although I can't say with 100% certainty he does not say &quot;should,&quot; -- and, again, will gladly accept having my skepticism countered by facts -- I'm sure he says &quot;can.&quot; In otherwords, he's likely informing people that's an option, not giving people an order.

From Steves' &quot;Thrifty Fifty Best Tips for Smart European Travel&quot; on his website...

&quot;Throughout southern Europe, drinks are cheaper at the bar than at a table. <i>The table price can be a great value if you'll linger and enjoy the view.</i> But those just tossing down a quick drink do it at the bar for about half price.&quot;

No &quot;should&quot; in there. He's just informing people what a lot of tourists -- especially first-timers -- likely don't know, that there can be a two-tier pricing system in bars and restaurants, something we (to the best of my knowledge) don't have in the U.S.

We all have different tastes, don't we? I am just not a big city person--I don't like the crowds of people, traffic, noise, pollution, etc., but many cities offer sites I want to see.

I like to see the historical and archeological sites, maybe one museum, whatever makes that city unique, and then head for smaller towns or the countryside.

For my first visit, I thought 3 days in Rome was enough before moving on. I saw the ruins, visited the Vatican/museum, walked from fountain to fountain, and visited a few other museums and neighborhoods (I walk alot.) By then I was tired of the noise, traffic, and high priced accommodations. Next visit to Rome I will probably spend a similar amount of time. I certainly did not see it all.

If I were planning a trip to Italy with Rome just as a part of it, like many posters I would allocate a larger proportion of my time in Tuscany, but not skip Rome.

... I checked his actual words about seeing Rome, and what people are saying is correct - in one day. I couldn't imagine how, but then I noticed in his footnotes on p. 143 he mentions seeing the city by train. He goes on to advocate Tuscany in three hours, but suggests a money saver by booking second class opening seating, but gaining a seat by the open window to optimize viewing. It never pays to second guess RS!

Capo:

Your interpretation of the quote from Rick Steves' Web site is absolutely correct.

But I found this one, which to my mind really takes the cake:

&quot;To save money in restaurants, couples can order a side salad and split an entree. To save more, request tap water instead of mineral water, drink the house wine, and skip desserts.&quot;

If saving money to the point of risking hunger faints and indigestion is the most important consideration, then in my opinion it would be better not to travel at all.

That experiencing the local cuisine -- including dessert! -- is one of the joys of travel seems not to have entered Mr. Steves' head, and I find it regrettable that, through the millions of copies of his books that have been sold, he may have prevented many travellers from experiencing that joy for themselves.

Thanks, Eloise. I saw that tip as well.

I'm very curious about how you see a couple ordering a side salad each, splitting an entree, drinking tap water instead of mineral, drinking the house wine, and skipping desserts as &quot;risking hunger faints and indigestion&quot;?

I'm also curious how you see mentioning skipping desserts as an <i>option</i> to save money, as somehow meaning that Steves doesn't grasp the concept that experiencing the local cuisine is one of the joys of travel?

Not everyone goes to Europe for the food (I can get Italian food in Seattle; I can't get Roman ruins in Seattle) and not everyone who enjoys eating food in Europe feels less joyful about their trip if they don't order a desserts after meals. I rarely order dessert after a meal -- preferring to satisy my sweet tooth at patisseries, etc. -- and have experienced almost nothing but joy on my eleven trips to Europe.

Is there really anyone on the planet who takes every bit of travel guide advice as gospel? Regardless what Rick Steves says (and I think Capo has pretty well cleared up previous misinterpretations) don't you really just glean facts and tips from guide books, mix in other sources of information like the internet and this forum, and end up with your own travel itinerary and way of doing things? I can't imagine anyone traveling with any travel guide by chapter and verse, without questioning anything.

I also have to agree with Capo that in Italy in particular two salads, half an entree, house wine and no dessert would satisfy me and my husband. Portions are usually quite large and we long ago gave up paying extra for bottled water (without any advice from RS).

You can get Italian-American food in Seattle, but not Italian food - for that, there's nothing like the real thing, in the real place.
We're lucky enough to be going back to Italy for a third time in October. We've been to the Big Three (Rome, Florence, Venice), the Amalfi Coast for a week, Tuscany for a week, Lake Como, the Cinque Terre. On this trip we're settling in Rome for seven days and hoping to become more immersed in it than we have been able to do in the past. It is deserving of as much time as you can allot to it. For what it's worth, we've never been pickpocketed or otherwise victimed in Rome, but our tires were slashed on the idyllic Italian Riviera; so anything can happen anywhere. That's no reason not to travel and see and do what you want. As for Rick Steves - he's enjoyable to watch - but he's one cheap son of a gun who takes economizing just a little too far.

I didn't read all the replies, but I can't imagine any travel guide would say something like that.

We spent a week in Rome in March and enjoyed the entire time. Nothing was stolen and we didn't see any pickpockets . . or other varieties of thief.

You could easily spend a year in Rome and not see everything so please don't limit yourself to a couple days because of an alarmist idea.

We're going back to Italy (outside of Rome) for five or six weeks in October and November and expect it to be an equally pleasant experience.

Don't worry just be alert. You'll be fine. ((@))

Well, I previously responded in this thread about Rome and the lack of any problems. I must report that my son and his girlfriend (who are 19) are in Italy right not and just returned to Florence from Rome. He sent me an email today telling me that their trip back from Rome on the train was &quot;eventful&quot;. First, on the Roma subway, someone &quot;pressing against me from behind&quot; -- he turned around and the guy had his wallet (why it was in his pocket, I don't know - he knows better than that, and he has a moneybelt). He grabbed the wallet back and as he was getting off the subway, the second &quot;kid&quot; swung at him, hitting him in the jaw. The older kid started to follow them off the train, but the younger one held him back. He did say that if they had been followed, there were police right there at the station.

There were more &quot;events&quot;, but that was the only significant one - the others involved a bum trying to sell them stuff and beg for money, and someone who kept insisting on sitting next to his girlfriend on the train (they refused).

So, be aware of your surroundings!

I'm sitting with Rick Steves' book right in front of me and he does not say that at all. He lists suggested tours for &quot;Rome in a Day&quot;; &quot;Rome in 2 - 3 Days&quot; and &quot;Rome in 7 Days.&quot; He then says, &quot;After two dozen visits I still have a healthy list of reasons to return.&quot;

I too am concerned about pickpockets (as I was in London, NYC, and any major European city) and I plan to use a money belt and an extra dose of common sense mixed with healthy precaution.

Spent one night and most of two days in Rome last Sept. and it was plenty. Since we were on our first trip to Italy, we felt there would be more time to delve deeper into Rome on future trips.

FYI, since several here mentioned the &quot;gypsy problem&quot; associated with Rome, I responded but, on another, more specific thread. Feel free to read that response here: http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34506367

A smart traveler is a safer traveler.

sandypaws3: <i>Yesterday, he picked up Rick Steves Italy, and Rick Steves maintains that Rome should be done in a day or two at most, because the thieves are so prevalent.</i>

Songdoc: <i>I'm sitting with Rick Steves' book right in front of me and he does not say that at all. He lists suggested tours for &quot;Rome in a Day&quot;; &quot;Rome in 2 - 3 Days&quot; and &quot;Rome in 7 Days.&quot; He then says, &quot;After two dozen visits I still have a healthy list of reasons to return.&quot;</i>

Grazie, Songdoc. That's what I've thought all along. One wonders why the person who began this thread wrote what they did.


Re: <i>I also have to agree with Capo that in Italy in particular two salads, half an entree, house wine and no dessert would satisfy me and my husband.</i>

Grazie also, Giovanna. I have to say that I was very amused at the assertion by a poster that the above, for two people, would &quot;risk hunger faints and indigestion.&quot;

Here is the exact quote from Rick Steves' &quot;Italy 2004&quot;: &quot;For most travelers, Rome is best done quickly. It's a great city, but it's exhausting. Time is normally short, and Italy is more charming elsewhere.&quot; In the &quot;Italy&quot; book he gives suggestions for 1- to 3-day stays, whereas in the book entirely devoted to Rome, he has a 7-day itinerary.

I think I would agree that if it's your first trip to Italy, you might want to spend more time elsewhere. It is true that the smaller cities are more charming, probably because their livelihood depends much more on the tourist trade, and it's in their interest to keep themselves more &quot;unspoiled&quot; at least in the central areas. Rome is a big city with all the diversity that usually entails, whereas Venice, Florence, Siena, or any of dozens other Italian cities and villages you might name have their own unique flavor.

As with anything, a lot depends on your own interests. If you are a city person, you would probably love Rome, and would definitely not run out of things to do. If you prefer a less hectic and more scenic environment, then spend more time in the countryside and smaller villages.

As for pickpockets, we haven't been to Rome for a few years, but I think they are pretty common everywhere tourists assemble. A friend of mine told me that the Louvre is now a popular target. I had my wallet stolen in Venice, and it was really my own fault because I was careless and left my bag open while in a crowded spot. It taught me a good lesson, and I hope I've learned to take enough precautions that it won't happen again, wherever I am.

For anyone who thinks a day or two is long enough for Rome, here is a quote from William Murray's book &quot;City of the Soul&quot;:

&quot;No one should come to Rome for only a day or two, better to stay home and watch the Travel Channel. This is a city that makes demands upon your attention, that requires a commitment to leisurely exploration. Its ancient ruins, its gleaming Renaissance palaces, its great Baroque basilicas and dozens of treasure-filled churches, its squares and fountains and statues, its maze of narrow, cobbled streets, the very stones themselves, which exude an auara of time endlessley indulged, can only be appreciated in the intimacy of personal exploration. And even then you will find that whatever time you may have spent in the city, you will long for more. Like Hawthorne, Goethe, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Twain, and so many other artists and writers and just plain visitors, you will find yourself lured back to it time after time by the fascination it exerts. 'For Rome one lifetime is not enough' ... &quot;

&quot;City of the Soul&quot; is a wonderful book that I'd recommend for anyone traveling to Rome, to experience the flavor of the city from someone who loves it. It's quite short -- a small book of only 140 pages.

I especially enjoyed his comment to the person who was listing all the beautiful open spaces in Paris, claiming they were better than Rome's. &quot;All I said to him,&quot; reports Murray, &quot;was 'Piazza Navona.' He paused, stunned, then looked at me and smiled. 'You win,' he said. 'God's waiting room.' &quot;

In addition to the &quot;City of the Soul&quot; book, there's &quot;A Traveller in Rome,&quot; written in the 1950's by H.V. Morton and recommended by Fodorites elsewhere on this site. I started it last week (it's 400 pages of small print) in anticipation of our October trip (our third)to Rome. It's terrific - provides a vast historical context for present-day (well, mid-20th century, right after the War) Rome, captures the Roman character well and makes you want to be there - no, to live there - all the time.

Piazza Navona is &quot;God's waiting room.&quot;? I hope not. Yes, it's attractive; yes, it is fun; yes, the fountains are lovely; yes, the church (when it's unbound from scaffolding) is inspiring . . . BUT, there are all the hucksters, hokey artists (fun, but hokey nevertheless), street performers ranging from amusing to ghastly, and crowds crowds crowds. Somehow I was hoping for a bit of peace in God's waiting room.

I like Rome, but given a choice between Rome and Paris, I'll take Paris any day. Personal choice.((@))