jroe111

We are planning to visit Bangkok, SIEM REAP, Hanoi. I was also going to both Chiang Mai and Luang Prabang but have gotten advice that this may be too many places for one trip. My husband and I have traveled extensively but unfortunately we are in our 50s and I like to settle in one place for 3-4 days and get to know it alittle. So if I had to pick between Chiang Mai and Luang what is your advice or am I making too big a deal out of this and I can do it all. Thanks I appreciate your thoughts.

Kathie

Don't try to do it all - Asia lends itself best to slow travel. Indeed, I think 3-4 days is a minimum for any of these destinations, and I'd encourage you to spend more time.

I'd vote for Luang Prabang, no question. It's a charming little town with lovely wats, and lovely people. Chiang Mai, in contrast, is a huge, sprawling city with worse air pollution than Bangkok and no public transportation.

rahulm

We just came to Luang Prabang from Chiang Mai, and I'd vote for Luang Prabang over Chiang Mai as well. It's quieter and more beautiful in my opinion.

thursdaysd

Definitely Luang Prabang - a magical city. One hill, two rivers, 30+ temples. Lots to see, but also a good place to take it easy. I enjoyed Chiang Mai the first time I went, but now, as Kathie says, it seems like a smaller Bangkok with less to recommend it.

rhkkmk

LP is my vote too...

how long is your trip....if its not over a month you are going to tooooo many places

glorialf

My one feeling is that if you go to LP you are going to 4 countries in a short period of time which means that you will see a lot of sights and have wonderful experiences but you won't learn much about any culture or country. That, for me, would be a problem. But I'm a traveler who likes to immerse myself in one country. Even though Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos are very close to one another they have very different cultures and histories. Even their form of Buddhism can be different.

glorialf

I also think Bob is right in terms of number of places. Here's the reason:
Bangkok requires a minimum of 6 days and I think 8 is preferred
Siem Reap requires 4 days
Hanoi -- I'd suggest at least 5 or 6 days
LP -- 4 days
Chiang Mai - 4 days

3-4 days in places like Bangkok and Hanoi are simply not enough time in my opinion.

thursdaysd

This is, of course, totally subjective, but unlike many here I'm not a big Bangkok fan. If it would mean cutting out LP, I wouldn't spend 6-8 days in BK. Actually, I wouldn't spend 6-8 days there anyway, I'd head for somewhere smaller and less polluted.

rhkkmk

strangely the pollution in bkk never bothers me, but it has in CM...

thursdaysd

Actually, I suppose it's the traffic as much as the pollution, even though I use the boats and the sky train as much as possible. And I did enjoy it rather more in 2004, when I went through three times and stayed longer. But I'm totally not a shopper, I've seen the major sights (some more than once), and you can eat well in other places. But reading Burdett's novels, I did start thinking about going back...

rahulm

I agree with Bob. After 5+ continuous years in the bay area, I was expecting Bangkok pollution to hit me hard, but had no trouble whatsoever. We got to Chiang Mai and the very next day I had all sorts of problems because of the pollution, the worst of which was a very sore throat.
We got to Luang Prabang yesterday, and my throat is already clearing up and I feel much better. While we loved Chiang Mai, the pollution (and sore throat) left a bit of a bad taste.