I’ve gotta say, Rome was built up a bit too much for me. Before I came abroad, I thought of it was a cool place with so much history, but not as an exciting modern city. And then everyone started talking about how amazing of a city it is. But I’ve gone back to what I thought before. The historical sites are spectacular, but the city just seems to be missing some element that makes it less interesting than Florence, and much less interesting than Athens. Maybe it’s something to do with a lack of authenticity, but I’m not really sure.
In 24 hours, we pretty much did Rome. The Piazza Venezia, Trajan’s Column, the Pantheon, Trevi Fountain, the Spanish Steps, the main park, back to Piazza Venezia/Pantheon/Trevi/Colosseum at night, St. Peter’s Square (both at night and during the day), St. Peter’s Basilica (inside and on top), and the Vatican Museums (including the Sistine Chapel).
I really liked Trajan’s Column, and going inside the Pantheon, and pretty much all of the Vatican. St. Peter’s Basilica is THE Church, if there ever was an ultimate church, and the museums there are so overwhelming (and long) that by the end everyone walks by Chagalls and Dalis without even caring.
On Day 3 we went to the Colosseum, where we signed up for a tour which turned out to be very worth it. Our guide inside was this ridiculously buff/tan/sunburnt Italian who was probably a gladiator. Then there was a free additional tour around Palatine Hill with a delightful British woman named Claire. We also walked through the forum quickly, and my favorite part was seeing the Arch of Titus, because there’s a menorah sculpted inside. Even though it’s showing Titus returning from conquering Jerusalem, I still liked seeing an ancient depiction of a menorah.
But three days was just too long for Rome. We really should have done two there and four in Paris, but oh well. Seeing the sights was great, I’m just not a huge fan of the city as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment