mackstud

This is a follow-up to a previous posting made last night, as other travelers have convinced me to narrow my plans.

The question: Burma or Angkor Wat (in addition to Bangkok).

If any of you have been to both Burma and AW and can comment on them, much appreciated! I've never been to Asia, and at this point am relying only on what I've read online or in guidebooks.

In February 2013 we will depart Chicago on a Friday night and arrive in Bangkok on their Sunday morning. We plan on 3 days/3 nights in BK to do the urban thing, and would like to go on to one other destination (not two others as originally conceived). We would fly home out of Bangkok the following Sunday or Monday, giving us about 4 days in another locale, depending on interim travel.

I had heard of AW as a once in a lifetime experience. For those who have been there and to Burma, any comments on preference for one or the other? I realize this might be apples and oranges, personal taste, but we are interested in "local folks", scenery, trekking, archeology/temples as opposed to shopping/museums.

Sorry if this post is duplicative, but hoping to get as much input as possible before starting to make more specific plans. Thanks!

Kathie

Since you only have 4 days in addition to your Bangkok time, I'm afraid you'll have to cross Burma off as an option. Burma is an amazing destination, and it is changing rapidly, but you just don't have the time to do it this trip. So I'd suggest Bangkok and Angkor as a do-able combination. Just to make your choice more complicated, another option would be Bangkok plus Luang Prabang, Laos.

Craig

Burma is out - you need 10 days. Spend an extra day in Bangkok and one day less at Angkor, unless you are REALLY into temples...

Kathie's suggestion of Luang Prabang might better fit your "local folks", scenery etc and would be better use of 4 days. Not what I would consider a "lifetime" experience though.

We did LP and Angkor on the same trip (along with 6 days in Bangkok). We did Burma separately, also via Bangkok.

shelleyk

I've been to both, and as Kathie and Craig have said, Burma is not an option in such a short period of time. The good news is that Angkor Wat is a very good option. You could spend time at the many fabulous temples and take a half day tour to Tonle Sap Lake, if you are interested in seeing the floating islands. Another alternative which I suggest based on your stated interests, is to spend the 4 days in Chang Mai, which I liked very much. If it were me, I'd go to Angkor Wat.

Nywoman

Having done it all. Angor Wat hands down, you just don't have enough time for Burma, Spend a day or so in Phnom Penh and then go on to Angor Wat.

kikiv

We were in Angkor Wat for four nights and 3.5 days in March and could have stayed longer. We flew direct from BKK and arrived at Siem Reap around lunch time. We stayed at the Hotel De la Paix which arranged a tour to Tonle Sap lake the same afternoon, I highly recommend this. We spent the rest of our days touring the temples. We were 5 women and hired an a/c van for our group which was well worth it because we were able to tour the countryside and visit some of the villages en route to the temples. We allowed our guide to order for us at the different local restuarants and were impressed with the cuisine. Angkor Wat is more than just the ruins;for me what added to the experience was Cambodians' hospitality and their desire to recapture their culture.