Is skipping Rome a bad idea?

Jessica, where you go on your trip should be dictated only by your interests and your trip logistics (time, budget, where else you are going, etc.). I didn't get to Rome until my third trip to Italy and I don't feel that I was shortchanged on my first two trips. You're young, expect that you will be back - Rome will still be there.

Well, you can see Rome without cramming a million things into your day. You're the one who sets the pace.

Rome is amazing and we've included it in all four of our itineraries to Italy so far. It's full of sights and sites that you've heard or read about your entire life. The other cool thing about Rome is that the historic center is a relatively small area, so it makes it great for walking around. It absolutely fits your criteria of "food, people watching, art museums, walking around to see the city, and learning about the history of the area."

I suggest you get the Rick Steves Italy book and read the section on Rome to see if it sounds interesting to you.

But you are likely to fall in love with Italy and you'll go back. Rome will still be there. After all, it is the Eternal City.

I am with Nancy (figurative speaking) in that we had to travel to Europe frequently since 72 but didn't get to Rome till 2001. Just a variety of reason that it was not convenient to hit in our earlier travels. Since then, we have been there five times with the most recent being last month. It certainly is high on any must see list but doesn't have to be first on the list. No one is going to criticize you for not going to Rome. And there are actually some people that don't like Rome. Put it on your next trip list.

Frank, Nancy and Michael, thank you for your responses.

"The other cool thing about Rome is that the historic center is a relatively small area, so it makes it great for walking around" is great to know. We ended our last European trip in Belgium, and flew out of Brussels. We only had one day there, and not even a full day, but we walked to the city square and spent most of our time in the area, and I'm so glad we did. Even though I didn't come to know the city as well as some of the others we spent more time in, it was a beautiful place and we made some great memories. I guess one option would be to fly into Rome, spend a couple of days there and not be obsessed with seeing everything, before moving on to our next stop.

Glad my comments were helpful. A couple of days in Rome to see the highlights that most interest you is a great idea.

And let me relieve you of the burden of the idea that you might not be able to see everything in Rome. You could stay there for months and not see everything there is to see, not to mention the experiences of all the various neighborhoods in Rome. We've been there for a cumulative total of maybe 24 days and have barely begun to scratch the surface.

I also did not get to Rome until my third or fourth visit to Italy and I never felt shortchanged. I've been to Rome many times since and it is one of my favourite places. But - I've also had many visits to Italy and not visited Rome on several of those, too.

The plan you suggested in your OP seems plenty fine to me. It seems to fit very well with your expressed goals.

Nothing wrong with skipping Rome, especially since you will be closer to northern Italy. Venice and Florence are no slouches. While Milan is not my personal favorite, it certainly could be a couple day visit or even a long layover stop on your way from Switzerland.

I do take issue with the previous poster claiming central Rome is compact. To a certain extent it is, the ancient area around the Forum, Coliseum and over to the Pantheon is pretty compact and walkable. But the city is huge and public transportation is nowhere near as convenient as some other large European cities. The Vatican is quite remote from ancient Rome, the Termini Station area (where many people stay and eat) is quite remote and Trastevere is across the river from all those and not connected by metro at all. Plus the city is filled with hills (seven of them to be exact) so even a reasonable distance can be more challenging by changes in elevation.

Skipping Rome is NOT a bad idea. It's a couple hours travel from Florence, and there is plenty to see based in northern Italy. Venice, Florence, and smaller towns in Tuscany sounds perfect. I'd include a day trip from Florence to Pisa to see the Torre (tower), and a day trip to Siena- which in my mind should not be missed.
With only 6-8 days in Italy, plan 2-3 nights in 2-3 places and you should have plenty to do.

You might consider a night or two around Lake Como, (west) or Lake Garda, (east) just to relax and people watch, and take in the beauty of Italy.

From Venice, a day trip to Verona, or to Ravenna...or visit Bologna from Florence on your way to Venice for great food and an interesting tower that leans that you can climb for a great view of the city.

I'm surprised someone would "take issue" with my statement that the historical center of Rome is compact, but you decide:

It's about two and a half miles from Termini train station on the eastern edge to the Vatican on the western edge. That means they're both a little more than a mile away from the Pantheon which is smack in the middle of the historic center.

It's only a mile and a half from Piazza del Popolo on the northern edge to the Circus Maximus on the southern edge, so about 3/4 of a mile to each from the Pantheon.

As for the hills, we've barely noticed them. It's not as if it's San Francisco. And if you don't want to walk it, the entire historic area is very well served by buses and a few trams.

if you visit Florence then you probably won't have very much left for Rome. you could still go and see a few things, but at the end of the trip you're going to wish you have more time. So if you will visit Italy again, I'd just see the north part and really enjoy it and save Rome for the next trip, maybe rent a room for a week. 3-4 days is not enough to scratch the surface.

The historic centers of Venice and Florence are both about 1 square mile in area. Even central Milan (with the exception of the train station) is only about a square mile in area. The main touristed areas of Rome, Paris and London, by comparison are about 3 square miles. I would NEVER describe those cities as "a relatively small area" (unless compared to sprawled American cities). Most people comment on how well the London Tube and Paris Metro can get you easily near where you want to go. Rome's Metro is oft criticized for its limitations in coverage and most casual tourists don't like to take busses.

Can most people see almost all of Rome by walking? Yes and I've walked almost all of it myself. But if someone asked me how to get from Termini to the Vatican, I would not suggest they just start walking - I'd tell them to take the Metro.

Not going to Rome on this trip is not a bad idea and actually a good idea. Why, because you just will not have the time for Rome. You really need to devote a week or at least five days to Rome. Don't regret not going to Rome at this point. Go to Venice or Florence instead. Venice is closer to Switzerland than Rome. You could go to Florence and Rome on next trip as the train between Florence and Rome is about an hour or a little more but it is a five hour train ride from Venice to Rome. Not everyone goes to Rome on their first visit to Italy. Quality over quantity is much better and makes for a better experience of a vacation. But you know this already and have answered your own question, which is good. Save Rome and you will be happy you did. I love Rome but as you said cramming it in is not worth it. Have a great safe trip. And remember Rome will be super warm the end of June.

If i was asked to return to italy with the amount of days you have for italy, i would stay away from Rome, but if you have never been, it is an important city to see for its history. I did not find Rome charming or romantic. It was hectic, chaotic, people everywhere, cars and traffic everywhere, dirty & graffiti (where isn't there graffiti in Europe, I know). But for its sights, Rome is a powerful place to visit. I found I was more content in Venice,Siena, Assisi, Florence. More charming and romantic in my opinion. So I would totally do Venice & Florence before I return to Rome. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go. I am glad that I went to Rome but feel that I do not have to return. If you do go to Rome, I would start in Rome and end in Venice so you can experience the yin and yang of Italy.

Team Venice!
Kelly

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to respond and help me out. I'm going to show this to my spouse and see what he thinks, but I'm leaning toward focusing on Venice, Florence, and Tuscany, and saving Rome for another time.

Jessica, notwithstanding my little quarrel with Douglas (Rome is "walkable" as opposed to "compact," I guess?) and as big a fan as I am of Rome, I think your decision is a smart one, given the limited time you have.

Have a great time.

Jessica,
Two trips ago, we had two weeks total, and 10 nights were in Italy. I also was trying to fit Rome in since my husband had never been there. But I paid close attention to the amount of time we'd spend traveling when we moved from hotel to hotel and decided against Rome. We drove from Germany, through Switzerland, to Lake Como (Varenna), Venice, then spent a week in Cortona, as our Tuscany home base.

This past April, we started in Cinque Terre, then Tuscany again (our favorite part of Italy), Rome, then ended the trip further south in Sorrento.

Skip Rome this trip and stick to northern Italy- Visit Lake Como or Lake Garda, Venice, Florence and day trip to Tuscany, or stay in Tuscany, and day trip into Florence. Think about whether you'd rather spend more time in small towns or big cities, and plan accordingly. We prefer small towns, and are happy with 2-3 days of big city intensity.

If you could fly from Switzerland to Rome then I would say it is a great place to see if you have 6-8 days because the train would take a while. If you decide to go someplace closer to Switzerland that is understandable too. I went to Nice France once but don't feel like I missed out on the whole of France because I never saw Paris. With that being said, Rome is a great place to stay put for a week. I have been there 3 times for a total 6 days and I promise you I have only scratched the surface. Rome has a little bit of everything. Every time you turn around you are randomly stumbling upon more ruins, more museums, historical churches etc... As for some of the negative comments about Rome, If you go to the wrong places at the wrong times and do the tourist trap things then anywhere in Europe will feel like the Italy in Epcot Center. Do your research. Find a place that fits your needs. Stroll the streets of Trastevere. Eat gelato by the Pantheon. See the pope (even if you aren't Catholic). Or do the equivalent of these things in another city. If you choose to stay in a big city like Rome you can very easily day trip to a small hill town, a lake, or a beach spot. Good luck!