Northern Thailand or Angkor Wat??
 

So, if it's my first trip to SEA and I possibly only have time for one or the other (N. Thailand or Angkor), which should I choose? I'm leaning toward Angkor, but the North sounds like it would be nice too. My other option would be to reduce my beach time and see both, but I do need some serious relaxation after I finish up my MBA. One more question... how long should I allocate for Bangkok? I prefer to spend most of my time outside of big cities, but I do want to see the "major" sites in/around Bangkok. I'm going to have about 2 to 3 weeks total.

first i will say that angkor wat area is fantastic but anything but relaxing... it is tough work in fact but rewarding....

i liked northern thailand but found angkor far more interesting and really a must do....

there is nothing especially unique about northern thailand imo....others will disagree but to each his own...

pick your beach area carefully...you might want to try two areas, btw...phuket and phi phi and even krabi....we loved samui....koh chang is a total lay back place and just emerging....

remember that the first few days will be a wipe out so don't cram all your bkk time in then, save some for the end...

i think you can do justice to bkk, as a non city liker, in 4 full days....i would prefer 6....maybe 3 at the beginning and maybe 3 or 4 at the end...

bkk is unique....pick your hotel carefully and that can make all the difference...we will be glad to help if you tell us your budget and what you are looking for....most of us prefer the river, expecially for a first timer....but i assume you are young and that might not suit you alone...

here is a great thai hotel site:

www.huahin.20m.com

Thanks for the help. Six days in BKK sounds like a lot! I'm thinking 3 to 4 max. Maybe two nights in Siem Reap and then the rest chlling out in paradise. I've been looking at Railay, Phi Phi, Koh Lipe, Kho Phangan, Koh Tao and Koh Chang. I know I need to narrow that down to two or three places, but it's so hard to pick!!! We aren't really that young (35), so we prefer some creature comforts and we travel on a moderate budget. We generally don't like really touristy places and places overrun with familes w/ kids. That's why Koh Lipe is appealing. It sounds beautiful, relaxing, and not too chaotic, although a long ways away.

I kind of want to check out both the Andaman and Gulf Coast, but I know that takes a lot of time too. Is it worth it to visit both or should I just stick with the Andaman side. We're hoping to travel in April if that makes a difference.

not sure of the april weather but it may have an infleunce on your choices....jamesA will give you good advice about that angle...he lives in thailand...

i found phuket very very commercial and not to my liking...i am 61 so have a different perspective than you too...

often you will get a far nicer hotel by just spending slightly more money...keep that in mind...never stay in a place without good a/c...there are many at the beach...

a couple of the places you mentioned i do not know...

for siem reap i suggest 3 full days and a partial day....it is quite expensive to fly there....most use bangkok air....they have the discovery pass which may save you some $$ too....you need to take at least 3 legs and pay here in usa with cash/check...the regular fare is about $275 r.t. from bkk...

most of the thai sites cost about $100-150 on thai or bkk air....less on the discount airlines but some are not reliable...air asia being one....nok air is getting good marks from many however...

i find that the best bet is to stay someplace that is recommended here...jamesA has given me great help....so if you explain to him exactly what you want and in what price range he most always comes through 100%...

now i see that you will not travel alone so that will make some things much nicer...

don't short change bangkok however...

The longer you can spend on this trip, the better. It's a very long flight from LA!

Here's my take on your questions: Angkor is absolutely incredible. But ask yourself, are you interested in Buddhism or Hinduism or Archaeology? If you are interested in any of these, Angkor will be the highlight of your trip. If you aren't, do something else. It takes three full days to see the major temples, a week if you want to see many of the minor temples as well. If you don't feel you can give Angkor three full days, I'd say to skip it this trip.

Bangkok is a fabulous city. I spent a total of 9 nights in Bangkok this trip, the rest of my time in Malaysian Borneo - and I've been to Bangkok maybe 20 times in the last 20 years.

You say you want relaxation. Consider that there are some wonderful places to relax that aren't on the beach - the Anantara at the Golden Triangle comes to mind immediately. Also consider that every time you change location, you lose much of a day. So I'd say choose just one beach location, so you really get time to relax there.

Asia requires that you slow down to get the best experience of it. In two weeks (on the ground in Asia), I'd choose not more than 3 locations, if you have at least 20 days on the ground, then you could choose 4 locations.

Logistically, it makes sense to spend a bit of yime in Bangkok at the beginning and at the end, though some people opt to go immediately to a beach to recover from the jet lag.

Wondering abouyt Angkor? You can get a preview at www.marlandc.com. If you like what you see, get an Angkor guidebook to read up on it and decide if it's for this trip.

Please excuse typos- I'm just home from Asia today and still recovering.

Thanks for all the great information everyone! I'm thinking we'll have a total of about 18 nights in Asia. I really do like archeological sites. For example, my husband and I loved Tikal when we went there recently. That's why Angkor interests me so much. However, two days at Tikal was pleanty before everything started to look the same, which is why I think 2 to 3 days at Angkor will be more than enough for us. I'm so curious about the beaches in Thailand too, that I'll have to visit at least two, maybe three, even if it means lots of moving around. I generally travel that way anyway or else I start to get bored parked in one place for a long time. I guess I just need to decide which beaches and whether or not I'm willing to trade some of my beach time to visit the northern areas. As far as our budget goes, I'd like to keep it under $100 per night most nights, with a few splurges here and there. We generally plan to fly between destinations whenever possible. If you have any more ideas based on this info, please let me know. Thanks!

I just completed my first trip to SEA, and I feel it worth telling you what I experienced. I just returned from Thailand and Cambodia, and unfortunately I found Siem Reap incredibly depressing, and now wish I had spent the remainder of my time just in Thailand.

I realize Angkor Wat, as well as all of the other temples are incredible to see, but the town/village of Siem Reap is incredibly despressing. I expected poverty, but while you are there you are limited to a small strip of restuarants where you are surrounded by people and kids begging from the time you come into town, until you leave. It became too much.

It felt like as a tourist you are trapped into this small area, and constantly hit up for money while you are there. It was hard to embrace and enjoy this part of the trip. Considering the flight is so expensive, put a little more research into your decision.

If you do decide seeing the temples outways these issues, know you can easily do this in one full day/one night with a private guide and driver.

Wow, you are the first person who has given me that perspective of Siem Reap/Angkor. I take it you didn't find the temples to be worth the time/flight/depressing factor? Anyone else feel this way?

Yes, Siem Reap is depressing - but eye-opening. We spent three days there in August, and came way as much fascinated by the quality of life there now as by what it must have been during the glory years of the Angkor Empire.

We were not big fans of Bangkok. It's hardly relaxing, it's dirty, and it's overgrown. 3 days should suffice - not more, not less.

Spent 4 days in Chiang Mai, which we absolutely loved, but didn't get elsewhere in northern Thailand. Chiang Mai is a nice-sized city without the excessive overcrowding and traffic in Bangkok. I highly recommend spending some time there, and have heard good things about other parts of the north as well.

Only had time for Koh Samui - and it's paradise. Absolutely spectacular place. If you're looking to stay away from the crowds there, pick Bophut over Chaweng. We spent one night at this charming little inexpensive but delightful hotel right on the beach in Bophut - wish I could remember the name.

Everyone is different. The first rule to travel is always "know yourelf."

While I've never heard anyone say before that they found Angkor depressing, there are some beggars (usually missing limbs). I'm not exactly sure what Baluka means by being confined to a small strip of restaurants and shops... I was there in 2001 and while the city is concentrated along the river, it's rather spread out and there were lots of places to go. It was large enough we wanted a car to take is from our hotel to restaurants (or shops or markets) on the other side of town, thoug we walked to closer areas near our hotel. There are dozens and dozens of temples, some an hour or two away from town.

Likewise, hitman didn't like Bangkok but loved Chaing Mai. I'm a city person and can't get enough of Bangkok. I found Chaing Mai frankly, boring. It had all the disadvantages of a big city (more polluted than Bangkok when I was there) and none of the advantages. Areas away from CM are lovely, but I didn't like CM itself. To me the beaches are nice, but aren't what epitomizes Thailand.

These comments are simply to highlight how different people's experiences are. Letting you know what we liked and didn't like and why can help you make the best decision for you.

You're absolutely right,Kathie. We're all different. I loved Angkor Wat but when I was there there were neither tourists nor begging nor deluxe hotels so it was a very different experience. However, I would not return. I'm glad I saw them and they are incredible but they didn't move me the way, for example, the Jain temples of India did or Wat Arun does or Borobudor. I appreciated them with my head and my eyes but not with my heart. Three days was enough for me. But I'm a people -- not a temple person (Bagan was my least favorite spot in a 3 1/2 week trip of Burma). On the other hand I love Chiang Mai and could spend countless days there just hanging out. I adore bangkok but absolutely understand people who hate it. It is a big, sprawling, dirty city and a not very attractive one at best. I fell in love immediately -- but again what makes me return these days are the people and the Oriental Hotel -- not the sites or the shopping. The beaches are a waste of time and travel to me.

I'd just like to chime in with my opinion-- go to Angkor! I have been to SEA many times, and my visit there remains one of my best memories. In fact, I'm returning (with my husband and friends this time!) next year.
IMO, there is no other place like it...

Thanks for all your replies. I think I'm still planning to include Angkor, since it does sound amazing. I traveled in other third world countries, so I know what I'm getting into from the poverty perspective.

I think we're looking at:
3 or 4 nights in north (Golden Triangle or Chang Mai/Pai areas, not sure yet)
2 or 3 nights Siem Reap
3 or 4 nights Bangkok
Remaining time relaxing on the beach.
(Phi Phi, Ko Lipe, Koh Phangan, and/or Ko Chang can't decide)

So, I guess I need help deciding what area in the North and what beach area(s). I'm soooo confused!

i did not find SR either boring or depressing....we saw few beggars and not real poverty....people were poor but proud generally....some were dismembered, but this is a fact of the past, not the present or future...

i find chiang mai boring ,also....can't say depressing although i would love to...

i love bkk and can never get enough of it...

so i agree with some but disagree strongly with some others: depressing...???

I have been going to Siem Reap for 10 years now as my wife is from the area.

I find the talk of depressing rampant poverty in the area amusing, actually. Right now, Siem Reap is the boomtown of Cambodia. Any family who is established there, with a little property, is land-rich beyond their wildest dreams of a few years ago. Speculators are offering peasants tens of thousands daily for any rice field in a somewhat strategic location.

The handicapped are still at the bottom, obviously, as they are most places throughout the world. But for the most part, the "poor" these days are migrants from other parts of Cambodia who have come for the jobs that are not available elsewhere--places of "true" grinding poverty and hopelessness like Pursat or Prey Veng Provinces.

Just another perspective from a (relatively) old timer.

Thanks for the follow up. I'm pretty convinced that Angkor is a must see and that I'll enjoy my visit to Siem Reap. Are there other activities/sites in the area or should I just devote my time there to seeing Angkor Wat?

Aside from the usual shopping/market hopping, the Cambodian Cultural Village is good for an afternoon. It is a very tastefully done "cultural theme park" that will give you a quick insight into the cultural traditions of the Khmer and the other 15 or so ethnic groups that comprise the Cambodian population. Bring lots of film for the dance performances and the staged "marriage ceremony".

I see that your schedule calls for two or three nights in Siem Reap. It takes a full three days just to see all of the so-called major temples. So I'd say to devote most of your time in Siem Reap to the temples. You'll want to walk around in town a bit, visit the market, perhaps the Artisans d'Angkor, and I recommend the small crafts shop selling items made by the amputees. Do pay the extra to drive out to Banteay Srei. It's a beautiful little temple and it gives you a chance to see the countryside.

I always recommend that people read about the temples before going. I like Dawn Rooney's book, Angkor, but since it's between editions, you may want to buy Michael Freeman's book, Ancient Angkor. This will also help you decide which temples you want to see, since you'll have to pick and choose since you only have a short time.

You are also welcom to visit our website to get a preview of Angkor: www.marlandc.com

Thanks again for all the information everyone! I actually ordered the new edition of Dawn Rooney's book on Amazon.com last week. It says that it will ship in late December.

Ha! Now they're saying it won't be released until February 2008. They've got to be kidding. Neadless to say, I've canceled the order. Maybe I can check out an older edition at my local library.