I am on a tight schedule and am not that excited to visit Rome. I guess most of the sites I'd be interested in seeing I have already seen a hundred times on TV, books, etc. I know it's not the same, but if I have to pick that over the Amalfi Coast, I think I'd pick the natural scenery over a museum or church. I know it's all personal interest and taste, but I want to be reassured that I won't forever regret hitting Rome as I doubt we'll be back.

To each his own, of course, but there's no way that I would skip Rome on a trip to Italy. You may have seen all the famous sites a hundred times on TV, books, etc. but it can in no way capture what it's like "live." There's a vibrancy and energy about Rome that nothing but being there would ever capture! You say that you prefer natural scenery: Rome will not disappoint you in that regard. One of my favorite things about Rome is its trees--magnificent trees and skylines all over the city. What I wouldn't give to be wandering around the Borghese Gardens right now, or climbing the Aventine hills...Rome has glorious natural scenery. Go to Rome! You won't be sorry you took the time to do it.

Hi IB,

On your other thread, I suggested skipping Rome.

You have only 1 day scheduled, and that is not really enough.

Save it for another visit and the time to Venice.

We have been to Venice many times and Italy once. One day we might get to Rome.

I think you will always regret not having seen Rome. However, it is my favorite city in the world so I don't claim to be objective.

Still it seems to me that to climb the Palatine and look down on the Forum and across the rooftops of the city is one of the great travel experiences. Then to wander the streets of the old town and have a meal in some cheerful trattoria, getting a feel for the life of the city . . . You might just end up an urbanite!

If a city presents a change of environment for you then I would say "Go to Rome" There is hustle and bustle. Is that what you want? on the other hand if a slower pace is what you think of for vacation then the AC might be more to your liking.
When I lived in NYC, I vacationed by the sea. When I lived on a Greek island, I would go to Athens for my change of pace.
TV and books are no substitue for the real thing, in Rome especially!

I'm not sure what your itinerary for Italy includes, but I highly recommend you visit Rome, even if it means skipping the AC this time. Rome is wonderful and, as noted above, very beautiful for its natural scenery.

Ira, you have been to Venice many times and Italy once. Huh????
I don't think that is what you meant, hopefully,

BTW, I don't think, unless one has been to Rome, one can appreciate the beauty, the vibrance, the life style,
the joy of being in Rome.

ItaliaBound, only you can decide what will work for you. I love the Amalfi Coast but I personally would not stay there if it meant having to give up being in Rome, but that's just me.

Hi
I have a feeling I've already responded to this question, but I'll restate here that I visited Italy twice before going to Rome and I had no regrets, still don't. I am not comparing Rome to the Amalfi Coast; since I haven't been to the AC I can't make a comparison.
But, Florence, a bit of Tuscany, and Venice were lovely ways to get to know Italy.
When I did get to Rome, I liked it, and hope in fact to return next year, but along with its treasures and pleasures I found it hectic, noisy, very spread out, and the metro of little use to me. My point being, that one day in Rome, in the context of the rest of your trip, doesn't seem at all worth it to me. Were you to skip the Amalfi Coast entirely because you've decided it's not important to you, that's another story. But, I also thought you'd said you WOULD be returning to Italy in the future. If you really think you will never return to Italy, which is sad, then go to Rome for 3 days at least. But you clearly will have to give up something else.

We are going to Italy for two weeks and not going to Rome. For us it was a logistical decision. I am easily disoriented in cities so I knew spending a couple of days in Rome wasn't going to cut it for me, I would need more time and I wasn't willing to spend 5 days of a two week vacation in Rome when there was so much more I felt I HAD to see. I guess what I am saying is its a very personal decision. Go with what calls to you. I'm hoping to see Rome on another trip. (Hopefully in the not too distant future!)

I'm in no big rush to get to Rome myself. As I often travel solo it seems a much more intimidating destination than smaller cities or the countryside.

I have been to Venice twice, and would return there in a heartbeat.

If you really only have one day skip it, but not for the reasons you stated. I no longer go to the museums or the sites and still find Rome fun, beautiful and exciting with an energy that is all its own.

I can't imagne a first trip to Italy and skipping Rome!

On our first trip many years ago, we had 3 weeks to do Italy on a loose itinerary..we never left Rome! And we've never left it off on any other trip we've made to Italy.

I would NOT skip Rome. I would spend only 3 nights on the Amalfi Coast and add one more day to Rome. Honestly, I'd skip Venice before I skipped Rome (but I know not everyone feels that way).

What month are you going?

Wow! I've been to almost all sections but Sicily (still to come) but would pass Venice in a heartbeat for Rome.

I will never forget the first time I saw the Colosseum. It was years and years ago when there were no entrance fees etc. It was sunset and I just stood there for an hour and couldn't speak. It's the heart of Italy and of an empire, Roma.

Another vote FOR Rome. It's definitely not just "a museum or church you've already seen on TV". There's something very powerful to being surrounded by all that history (and I'm not even a history buff). It's not a places where you walk up, snap a pitcure and say alright I've seen it. It's an imposing experience (in a good way), the effect is very strong.

I've been to the Amalfi Coast and LOVED it. But if you don't plan to return again I would recommend Rome. There are other beautiful scenic places in the world, but there's only one Rome.

Ditto Grasshopper, but then I am having a very torrid love affair with Rome, so I am biased. Returning again in Sept. BTW - perfect place for a woman traveling solo.

Although I agree that seeing Rome cannot be adequately done in a couple of days, why not go in to see the Vatican, the Colosseum, and the Forum. We were there only five days ago, and the visit was incredible, but a couple of days was adequate. (We have been there before, admittedly.) Rather than giving it up totally, go in for the most spectacular sites. We stayed near the Forum and Colosseum, so we went down to that area early in the morning and again at night (with a full moon!) and then only went briefly during the day when the crowds were crazy. I also love natural scenery, and the AC is incredible. If you think you won't be back to Italy, though, I would go to Rome long enough to see the Forum and the Colosseum at least. The crowds in that city are overwhelming to me, much more so than any other European city I have visited. Some describe that as "energy" but I tend to view it as borderline chaos. Nonetheless, it is an amazing place. PJK

And another vote for Rome. It's not only the monuments and museums, it's the vibrancy of the city. Some people do see it as chaos, but it is not: it is *controlled* chaos. And almost anywhere in Rome, you can choose to "stop the world, I want to get off" and sit in a cafe and just indulge in the sweetness of doing nothing or "dolce far niente."

We just returned from our first trip to Italy (Parts 1 & 2 of my trip report are posted). We spent time in Rome, Florence, Venice, then a week in Tuscany. It was too early in the season so we saved the coast for another trip. If I had to skip some part of our trip, it would be Rome...no offense to Rome lovers! It was amazing and I loved it, but it wouldn't have detracted from our trip to save it for next time. I describe Rome as "edgy"...great energy and very unique, but more travel "work" than other places in Italy. Just my opinion!

Natalie, that is an interesting comment because I find Rome very easy to be in. But then I love cities.
In Rome I think it is so easy to just sit at an outdoor cafe and people watch etc. And for some reason I find myself very relaxed in Rome. It is Florence that sometimes overwhelms me. And also Venice during the daytime. But we are all so different which is what makes life interesting.