Request recommnedations for four days in southeast Asia
 

I am traveling around the world in three weeks (that is all I could get off work). I have three days to spend in southeast asia and was wondering where you recommend I spend the time. I want to go to Angkor Wat and am considering spending time in Bangkok or Vietnam. My thoughts are to spend two days in Angkor Wat (can it be done in one day?) and one day in Vietnam and one in Bangkok. What do you think? Should I spend two days in Vietnam and skip Bangkok? Where would you recommend going in Vietnam? Thanks in advance for your help.

3 days is not alot of time, i am sure that you know that..But if it were me..I would just do Angkor Wat and Bangkok..It is less than a 1 hour flight between the 2..I just got back from seeing Angkor Wat last week..Angkor Wat is just 1 of the many temples to see..If all you want to see is Angkor Wat, and maybe another temple, then you could do it in a day and spend the other 2 in BKK..There is also lots to see in Bangkok..I don't think i would push it yet to go to Vietnam..Not enough time..And you have to subtract the flying time and time that it takes to get to and from the airports and as well getting to the airport at least 2 hours prior to departure, so that will really not leave much time..

But good luck..where there is a will, there is a way!!

If Angkor is a priority for you, then I'd spend the whole time there. (you'll have to fly there from Bangkok) Three days is considered the amount of time it takes to see the major temples. I spent a week there and didn't see all of the accessible temples. Read up on it first. I recommend Dawn Rooney's book, Angkor. You can also take a look at photos of my trip at www.marlandc.com

Uhm, might I ask why you're doing a RTW trip if you only have three weeks? You could easily fill up three weeks in Thailand alone. It sounds like you'll be spending more time in transit than anything.

all 3 days in bangkok

Thank you very much for the prompt responses. LA Fadeaway asked why I am traveling around the world in three weeks because my brother gave me an around the world, business class ticket that must be use by the end of the year. United Airlines had a promotion that if you fly 48 segments on United Airlines in or out of Washington, D.C. from May 1, 2004 to May 1, 2004, you are awarded a free, transferable around the world, business class ticket. He is married with three kids, and is always traveling so could not use it. Three weeks is the most I could get off work this year, so I will go around the world in three weeks.

Well just go an have a good time..If you like somewhere you can go back another time and spend more days there..I wish my brother would give me an all around the world business class ticket!!

I would spend all three days in BKK. Angkor Wat is a unique place, but a quick look will not do it justice, nor will it provide even a fraction of the sense of wonder. BKK for 3 days will fit perfectly into a frenetic 3 week RTW trip. You'll fit right in. If BKK captivates, you'll be back and can do AW as a side trip. Don't sweat too much, SEA is superb wherever you go. Oh, BTW BKK is much cheaper than AW, if that's a concern.

Althorn, I totally understand now. Makes a lot more sense. Enjoy your trip!

As much as I loved the temples of Angkor, I too would probably spend all four days in BKK on this trip. You'll be doing enough moving around! Bangkok is wonderful and well worth four days (more, actually). I don't think you'd get much enjoyment out of either if you tried to do both - it would be just too rushed. If you read my "final thoughts" post, you'll see that I recommend a minimum of three nights anywhere in Asia - that's what worked best for us. Vietnam in a day? Angkor Wat in a day? It wouldn't even be a spoonful, let alone a decent taste! That said...I must admit, if it were me, I'd be tempted to leave Bangkok on the third evening for Siem Reap (only an hour flight), spend the night in SR, and have a day of temple touring (Angkor Wat and Ta Prohm) and then fly out in the evening. It IS possible (but exhausting). I still think you'd enjoy it more if you just stuck with Bangkok. Have a great time whatever you do! I'm jealous. :-)

Good advice so far. RTW in 3 weeks - you must say where else you are stopping.

There is so much to see in SE Asia - but for a first time, and with so little time - I would spend it in BKK too. If you get really sick of the city there are options.

Gonna add one more vote for 3 days in BKK...it's a city that offers so much...I'm afraid you'd be disappointed going to Siem Reap for just a day. The temples are overwhelming and on the first day you're just getting adjusted. In fact, I wish I had gone back to Angkor Wat on the last day...I know I would have appreciated it more a second time around. BKK is a blast and three days will give you a memorable taste. Have fun.

Once again, thank you very much for all your advice. I am also going to Tokyo, Kyoto, Beijing, Xi'an, South Africa (Kruger Park and Capetown) and Paris. It is a crazy trip, but it will give me an opportunity to see many new places. The only place I am visiting on this trip that I have visited before is Paris. This gives me an opportuntity to get a flavor of different places and determine where I might go again. I am taking your advice and not going to Vietnam (I would have had trouble getting a visa anyway as I am starting my trip this Saturday). I am still leaning toward seeing both Angkor Wat and Bangkok. I have heard so many wonderful things about Angkor Wat, that I have to go. I will probably spend 2 days in Angkor Wat and 2 days in Bangkok. It seems people either love or hate Bangkok, and I am concerned about spending all my time there in case I don't like it.

I thin two days in Siem Reap to visit the temples at Angkor and two days in Bangkok is a bad compromise. If I understand your itinerary correctly, one of those days you'll be flying between the two places, in essence, giving you one and a half days in each place. You won't have enough time to catch the flavor of either. Travel in SE Asia is best done at a slow pace so you can soak up the atmosphere. As I said earlier, if Angkor is your priority, go there. If you are bored after a day, fly back to Bangkok and spend a day there. But in trying to see both, you'll experience neither.

I agree with Kathie. Racing through too many places will be as if you haven't been there at all, if you know what I mean. You are much better off trying to decide between the two places. Ask yourself what you really like since the AW & BKK are two completely different experiences. There is tons of material about both places so you can get a very clear idea of each & then decide.

I actually have five days including travel. I am leaving Beijing on April 24th at 9:00 A.M. and arriving in Bangkok at 12:30 P.M. I could leave at 12:50 and get into Siem Reep at 16:00. I could stay in Siem Reep on the evenings of the 24th and 25th and take the last flight out on the 26 (19:00) and arrive in Bangkok on the 26th at 19:50. My flight does not leave Bangkok until 19:15 on the 28th.

Although everyone on this site feels 4 days is too little time....my husband and I travel very quickly through many destinations. When you have limited time (we are not retired nor have extremely flexible schedules) you make the most of it. I would say go for both Angor Wat (2 days) and Bangkok (2 days). If one amazes you, it will give you the urge to return again for a longer timeframe.