mackstud

My wife and I will arrive in Bangkok on a Sunday in February 2013 and have 7 days in southeast Asia. We envision two or three nights in Bangkok but would appreciate recommendations on where else to go.

Angkor Wat/Siam Reap seems like a "must" given that it seems to be on everyone's top 10 list of places to go before you die, so we were thinking a day or two there, which might give us enough exposure to temples for the rest of the trip.

If folks agree Bangkok and Angkor Wat are the two "must see" places, and we are interested in local folks, scenery, hiking, local food (and not so much for shopping, museums, guided tours) where might we spend our other 2-3 days?

I'm leaning to Northern Thailand, Chiang Ma perhapsi, for a third destination, as the Thai infrastructure seems good, and there seems to be a variety of things in Northern Thailand to do that are different than what we would have seen in BK or Angkor Wat. Burma sounds fascinating but it looks like we'd have to spend one day in Yangon (an unattractive sounding place) before trying to get to Bagan or Inle Lake on what sounds like unreliable airline bookings. If one has been to Angkor Wat, will be Bagan be sort of more of the same? Any experiences in Burma that would trump what we might experience in Northern Thailand? Phonmh Penh would be an easy hop from Angkor Wat but it sounds less interesting than northern Thailand. True?

All I know of all of this is what I've read, so would appreciate any input from those who have been to a couple or more of these places. Thanks!

MmePerdu

For just a week I suggest you stay in Thailand and divide your time betwen Bangkok and Chiang Mai. You just don't have the time to go anywhere else. As you've mentioned Thailand has the infrastructure to ease your way and for such a short trip you need all the easing you can get. Any more and you'll see nothing but airports.

I also suggest you do some reading. Angkor/Bagan..."more of the same"? Hmmm.

Now that I read your post again I'm wondering if this is one of those "gotcha" posts.

Kathie

With a mere 7 days, you'll have to choose your destinations carefully. Do you have 7 full days on the ground in SE Asia (i.e., 8 nights)?

Bangkok and Angkor would be a good combination for a week. Don't try to fit in more. It takes three full days just to see the so-called major temples. If you are really interested in the temples, you'd want a week or more. if you aren't interested in the temples, why go?

It would be possible to get a glimpse of Burma in a week - a mere glimpse, but if that is all the time you have you could do it. Airlines in Burma are quite reliable, though there may well be delays, and whatever time you thought you were booking a flight for will be changed by the time you get to Burma. The infrastructure in Burma is nowhere near as good as in Thailand, or as in Siem Reap. If you opt for Burma, you'd want to fly to Yangon on one of the morning flights from Bangkok and then get on a flight to either Bagan or Inle. It would be best to spend three nights in each place, return to Yangon the day before your flight and spend a full day there before your return to Bangkok and your onward flight home. There is certainly plenty to see/do in Yangon for a few days, and you would have just one day.

Are Angkor and Bagan same-same? Not at all - and I assume you already know that.

Yes, the experiences in Burma (think Inle Lake) will trump Northern Thailand. For one thing, Burma is relatively untouristed. Even now, when larger numbers of visitors than ever before are arriving in Burma, the numbers are very small in comparison to other countries in SE Asia.

You are welcome to take a look at our photos: www.marlandc.com In particular, look at the two sets of Burma photos and the set of Angkor photos.

mackstud

Thanks for the quick replies, and I hope to hear from more!

I suppose I wasn't clear in my post on two points. I had wondered if we'd have "temple fatigue" (similar to museum fatigue) if we went both to Angkor Wat and Bagan. I'm new to investigating this, and really don't know how these two "temple complexes" are the same or are different. Second, we to tend to pack in a lot on our trips, and error on the side of "doing too much at once" as we never be back in this part of the world, so adding a third stop is still something we'd like to investigate, something other than the urbanicty of BK or the temples of AW.

I'm looking to make a flight triangle, of BK to Siem Reap, and from SR to another destination without going back through BK, and then back to BK from the 3rd destination. Now trying to see if Luang Prabang Laos might work for a day or two as supposedly one can fly from SR to LP and then back to BK.

Would love to get to Burma, but that would mean bypassing Angkor Wat.

Appreciate any more comments on these ramblings, thanks again!

thursdaysd

You seem to be suggesting that you will only visit SEA once, for seven days (not clear if that's full days). That's just crazy. It's a large area, with several very different cultures. Would you approach Europe with the same plan?

There is no point in going to Luang Prabang for just one day, or even two. You can't see both Bagan and Angkor in the time you have, and Angkor need a minimum of two full days (three nights), but preferably three days.

As another current thread says, the time to go to Myanmar is now. The time to go to LP and Angkor was about ten years ago, although they are still worth seeing.

Kathie

The idea that you could go to both Angkor and Bagan in a one week trip is unrealistic. Indeed, I would suggest that you not try to fit in three destinations in your short week. Choose two. You want to fit in a lot, and choosing two destinations (or a week in Burma) is fitting in a lot. More destinations will be less time in the places you want to see, more time in transit.

Where are you coming from? Have you thought also about jetlag and the heat?

mackstud

The gentleman from Chicago yields the floor to Kathie and those who speak with wisdom!

Point taken, I should plan on Bangkok and only one other destination, as much as it pains me to do so!

I think I will repost and see if others can comment more specifically on the merits of Angkor Wat vs. Burma (Phonmh Penh didn't get mentioned in any replies so I assume that it trails other options here).

Thanks very much!

thursdaysd

I think PP is definitely worth seeing, but if you have a choice of Angkor or PP, you should see Angkor. If you want to see Myanmar you shouldn't try to see Bangkok as well - get your visa in advance and just change planes in BKK. (Appreciate that you are listening!)