Change Forum
I am planning a trip to Europe, my first time there and I have planned initially to have 4 full days in London and another 4 full days in Rome (excluding traveling and transiting time). I am now thinking if i should rearrange it such that I have 5 full days in London and 3 full days in Rome instead because it somehow feels like there is more to cover/do in London. Any thoughts?
London:Rome 4:4 or 5:3
Recent Activity
View all Europe activity »
- 1 Transfer from CDG to hotel near Opera
- 2 Capri - day trip from Sorrento
- 3 Which SIM Card is better? GEOSIM or United Mobile???
- 4 Cell phone question
- 5 Spending 2 weeks in Europe : suggestions?
- 6 connection time in Zurich
- 7
Two months in Europe - trip report
- 8 Please Tweak Our Irish Itinerary
- 9 Le Sirenuse versus Il San Pietro
- 10 35 th anniversary in Provence & Paris
- 11
Germany, Austria, and Italy Trip Report
- 12 How do you drink Marc?
- 13 Dinner in Tuscany: Which Town?
- 14 Austria in december
- 15 Looking for cheap hotel in london
- 16 Inexpensive jewelry (like Claire's) in Paris?
- 17 Need Help with Train Travel PLEASE
- 18 4 Day Paris Itinerary?
- 19 Venice / Easter Sunday
- 20 Anniversary Lunch with beach view near Rome
- 21
Treacle Down Effect
- 22 Porto and the Douro valley
- 23 Arles, France market or Uzes market?
- 24 What kind of cheese should we eat in Venice?
- 25 Almost totally confused: Paris Visite or Navigo Decouverte?
I'd go for the 5:3 on the assumption that you'll reach London first and will be jet-lagged.
I'm assuming you have considered an open jaw / multi city ticket to remove the need to return to London to travel home.
I too would suggest 5:3, but for a different reason...
Once you've seen Rome, Britain's capital (my old home) may never again appeal as much - so spend a decent amount of time there this visit!
But even all 8 days would hardly let you scratch Rome's almost 3000 year history...
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/lazio
Peter
Honestly, this is like asking strangers whether Italian food's better than French.
If you're a Catholic classical scholar, or a fan of Baroque art, it's 8:0 for Rome. If you're a fan of PBS Masterpiece Theater girlie series, it's 8:0 for London. And both would agree 8 days is absurdly little for either place (though the more I see of Rome, the happier I am I live near London). Personally I'd just choose one. Or flip a coin if you thought you'd never be able to return.
They're both wonderful, of course. I think I'd just get a guidebook and read the London & Rome chapters and see which one has more sights and neighborhoods that you're aching to taste.
It depends on your interests but if I were taking the trip, knowing what I know after many visits to each, I would do 4:4. There is much too much to cover in both cities to do them justice in 4 or 5 days but 4 days will give you a good overview.
Since we don't know why you chose these two cities -- no one can give you useful advice. What do you want to see? What sorts of things interest you?
W/o knowing anything about you--I'd personally do 5 London/3 Rome simply because of the jetlag factor for a day or two in your arrival city. (if you were landing in Rome and flying home from London then I'd recommend 5 Rome/3 London)
But again--WHY did you choose these two cities -- then we can give better advice.