Dirty: no it’s not dirty. Not any more so than the average large European or North American city. People tend to be overly critical of foreign cities; xenophobia and prejudice can taint someone’s view of a foreign country/city, reducing the accuracy in such accounts. Reason I say this is that I have never found Rome to be “dirty”. It’s very clean compared to New York, and it doesn’t have the kind of baggage that US cities have (slums, city centers deserted after 5PM, pockets of incredible crime and poverty, anti-pedestrian urban planning, disrespect for historical architecture, etc); and some Canadian cities have some of this baggage as well.

Disappointing: that depends on your expectations.

I liked Rome a lot but it’s very hard on the budget. You don’t get much for your accommodation $. We stayed here and thought it was a relatively decent value:

http://www.mariahost…

Not sure when you’re going, but the Berner Oberland in Switzerland – around Lauterbrunnen and Interlaken – is spectacular and would provide good contrast to your other destinations.

You will easily enjoy 5 days in Paris. I did like Rome, but found 3 days or so was enough. Since train travel is so affordable in Italy, you could easily spend a full day and night in Siena, Florence, and a couple of days in Venice. It is also a reasonable train ride to the Cinque Terre where you could enjoy 2-3 days.

I like Rome and I think 3 days is the absolute minimum. A day trip to Pompeii and Herculaneum makes a good 4th day. I didn’t find it particularly dirty, but it is incredibly swamped with tourists from May through September which makes anything you try to see and do a bit like visiting Disney World on a busy day. While violent crime is almost non-existent, you do need to “take the normal precautions” for pick pockets.

Personally, I don’t care for Paris. I think it’s a far greater “disappointment” than Rome, but I’d never recommend skipping it to someone who hasn’t been there. Everybody ought to see it once. Again 3 days is the minimum as there’s an incredible amount of things to see and do, plus there are lots of great day trips from Paris. An overnight trip (leaving the majority of your gear in Paris) from Paris is another great option.

That sounds like a good plan.

There’s so much to see in and around Rome that 5 days seems perfect and, no, Rome is not dirty (or at least not anymore than any other major city). Paris is lovely too. All in all I think you have a good, simple, unrushed itinerary.

It’s harder to find Rome in Rome than Paris in Paris during July and August. In Paris, you can usually walk 2-3 blocks and get away from the crowds, whereas in Rome tourists are like ants, everywhere. Paris is much bigger, too, and that also makes it easier to get away to quiet places. Plus there is the Metro. I much prefer Paris during high tourist season, but stay away from the tourist places.

you have a great plan
5 days in Rome and Paris will be great
you’re not trying to do too much too fast like many
i second spending 2 or 3 days in Cinque Terre – but book your lodging now
happy travels

Thank you all for your replies.

My professor has gone to Rome every summer for the last 300 or so years and he says it is a dirty, stinky place filled with weirdoes……….but he loves it I might be going next year, so at that point I’d be able to give my own opinion.

In all seriousness, one thing I have heard about Rome is that if you’re not big on history, a lot of its charm will be lost on the average sight-seer. Like if you can’t appreciate that you’re walking on the same streets where Sulla marched his legion into the city for the first time, or standing next to Circus Maximus (which kind of like… isn’t there anymore), you’re better off going somewhere else that’s easier on the money-belt.

Feicht,

re: history

I disagree. I think that even if you’re not a history buff (or an art history buff) Rome has something to offer visitors with other interests. Rome (and any Italian city in general) has an extremely high proportion of older buildigns that remain intact and in modern-day use, when compared to the rest of the world. This has created an irresistable charm that plays a major role in making Rome the major tourism destination that it is. You don’t have to be able to point out examples of architecture from the Baroque era in order to appreciate what you’re looking at during a stroll through the city. I’m not saying all tourists care for this, but many do love the city just for this reason. Another major draw is Rome’s vibe/soul and way of life. Now, Rome will be teeming with tourists certain times of the day, but the locals are still there (except in August) living day-by-day in their city, Mediterranean style of course. As I always suggest people do when visiting a Suothern European destination: don’t plan the bulk of your sightseeing activities during mid-day. Wake up early, get them out of the way, then rest up during siesta, and then go for an evening stroll in central Rome. Get some gelato. Or a pub crawl, some of you have been talking about a pub crawl in Rome. This is what summer is all about in the Med.

Same thing goes for Paris. Paris is not as hard-core Meditterranean as southern France, but same concept. There’s more to the city than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower. Leave your hostel in the evening to absorb the city. Just keep in mind the times that the metro closes (if your hostel is not walking distance to city center) or if your hostel has a curfew.

Thanks Luv_the_beach for the motivation.
I’m not a die-hard history buff…like I don’t care if Julius Ceasar walked on that particular road or if Napoleaon crapped on that stone lol But I enjoy beautiful architecture… So I think I’m going to like Rome.

I dunno, I just couldn’t imagine not caring about the history of a particular place I visit. I think it makes anywhere inherently more interesting if you know what happened there in the past. Don’t get me wrong, I like to walk around and look at pretty buildings too But for me, it just adds an extra (and for me, necessary) dimension to appreciate the historical aspect.

I’m with you on that, Feicht. I’m one of those people that reads up on a city before I go there, and/or after I’ve visited, I look up the city to learn about the sites/monuments/buildings/districts that I saw. Rome is of special interest to me, because one of my passions is urban issues (cities, urban planning, etc). Rome is probably the oldest continuous big city in Europe…I think it’s safe enough to say that. Athens is older than Rome, but the city declined in the Middle Ages, only to regain its status as a major city in the 19th century. Rome, by contrast, has been a major city throughout its history. Italian cities also I believe lucked out in history (and this is my own personal hypothesis)…they were wealthy during the right times (Renaissance, for example), and poor at the right times (1950s/1960s), hence were able to build amazing architecture during the Renaissance and Baroque eras, and avoided the ugly concrete boxes and anti-pedestrian urban planning of the post-WWII era (of course there’s probably other factors as well). When the world started to reverse the disastrous trends of the post-WWII era (that even Paris suffered to an extent) and started to recognize the value in traditional architecture and traditional urban planning, Italian cities were already ahead. The result today is cities from New York, to Shanghai, London, Athens, and Curítiba in Brazil now emulating this model, at least as much as they can.

Great point Only thing I’d disagree with is Rome being a continuous big city. During the Empire, it had at least a million people living there; by the early modern times as I understand it, it was basically a ghost town with maybe 20k. People in the middle ages would come through and marvel at the crumbling ruins with no one around them, whilst the locals were busy tearing apart the monuments and huge structures to build their own houses with and whatnot

I totally know what you mean about being poverty stricken at the right times though, and you’re totally spot on. It’s a shame on the human level, but for modern people its a godsend that some of these places were preserved! Towns like Rothenburg in Germany are great examples of this; population decimated (literally) during the religious wars of early modern Germany, stricken with plague and famine, the town was eventually a skeleton of its former glory (having been at one time more important as a stop on a trade route than Frankfurt, Munich, et al) and as such, became a backwater whose remaining population didnt even have enough money to tear down the nice old buildings to build new shiny ones. And of course now, everything’s come full circle and the town’s economy is booming based on people that want to come look at said buildings

I have not been to Italy but know folks that have been. From people I’ve talked to “dirty” or “stinks” is applied to Milan and Venice more than Rome. Parts of Paris cast unpleasant smells from what I hear as well. But you can’t always go by what you hear as everyone has different standards. I’ve heard complaints about New York City and Amsterdam but I personally had no problems with either city. Large cities have issues with garbage and sewers. It’s a fact of life.