Can I fully experience Rome in 3 days?

Mrs. Diddy and I want to go to Italy for our next vacation, probably in the March area. We came across an offer that includes airfare to Rome, you stay there 3 days (okay, really two and a half), take a train to Venice, and then fly home from there two and a half days later.

So my question is, are we better off visiting one city at a time, i.e. Rome for 6 days and Venice some other time? 3 days seems swift for a city like that, but on the other hand I can’t imagine going all the way to Italy and only visiting one city.

I’m not too concerned about Venice; it seems a little more compact and easier to cover in 2 days. I’m just curious about Rome.

Nope – I spent a week in Rome and barely scratched the surface.

If by “fully experience” you mean getting into the “feel” of the place, I’d suppose that would be possible. Variables like the weather, your choice of places to see, the company you’re surrounded by, etc., might allow you to get “the feel” of Rome or anywhere else.

But I doubt you could “fully experience” any place in that short a time. Not even a small town in Mississippi. The idea of “fully experiencing” something like a place implies, to me, to get into the intricacies and history and customs, not to mention the lore and secrets of the region.

Maybe you could expand on what “fully experience” means to you.

I’ve spent upwards of a week in new places and had no clue what really made the place unique, or even what the locals thought. And that was after trying to engage some of them in conversation or in observing them going about their business.

Yeah, you’re right, poor choice of words. All I really meant was “see the things most people go to Rome to see and actually have time to appreciate them”. The Colosseum, the Parthenon, the Forum, maybe St. Paul’s Basillica, not necessarily the Vatican.

I know you could never get into the intricacies of a city like that in two years, much less days. I just want to get an idea of whether we would feel that it was a well-spent vacation or if we would feel shortchanged afterwards.

Rome is perhaps the coolest city on the planet. You would definitely feel short-changed.

(checks preview, nope no one’s said it yet…)

Of course not… you know it wasn’t built in a day!

ba dump pshhht

I hit most of the major sites in Rome in 4 days - and one of those days was Christmas (so everything was closed), one day was Monday (so half of everything was closed), and it was winter, so the sun was down in mid-afternoon.

But then, I had a plan that pretty much involved constant movement and I don’t do things like “stop and eat” when on vacation. (I like vacationing like that. I’ve heard that it exhausts other people).

I ended up really loving it there, and I do want to go back someday to see more and do more. But only spending 4 days there on that trip was the better choice for me.

When we traveled through Italy, we spent multiple days in Florence, Sienna, Verona, Venice, and Rome, and Rome was, for us, the least interesting of them all. We saw all the major highlights in plenty of time, but it was noisier, dirtier, and more “conventional” (in a Big City sense) than any of the other places we’d been. If you love high-end shopping or want to immerse yourself in historic ruins (beyond the biggees), you’ll have a great time, but when it came to food, museums, casually wandering through neighborhoods, and being farther removed from tourist elements, there were plenty of places we preferred. YMMV, of course, but after 4 days (including the Vatican), I have no desire to revisit Rome (especially at the expense of other Italian destinations).