Saigon or Kathmandu
 

Hi <BR>I am planning to arrive in Bangkok at September,and follow a trip (I have around 5 days only) to Saigon or Kathmandu. From your own experience where should I go? <BR>Dan

hi dan-- <BR> <BR>i saw ur post earlier but thot it might be answered by someone who'd been to both saigon and kathmandu. since it hasn't, i'll offer my one-sided input! <BR> <BR>i lived in sgn 4 yrs and traveled to bangkok for work and pleasure more than a dozen times. compared to other asian cities i've been to, sgn and bkk strike me as having many more similarities than w/, for example, tokyo or luang prabang. the climate is similar (i usually found bkk marginally hotter) and both are giant, crowded cities, bkk w/ abt 9 million people and sgn abt 7 million. of course bkk is more developed, w/ more highrises, cars, paved streets and highways, lots of foreign retail and restaurant branches, movieplexes, and a significant middle class. sgn is overall much poorer, which is evident even in the tourist areas, and it seems that at any hour btwn maybe 10pm and 6am the entire population is either streaming by on motorbikes or sitting on the sidewalks conducting business, munching on delectable streetfood (i'm serious--this is what i miss most) or just hanging out. other expats i knew in sgn loved going to bkk bc of its similarities w/ the first world, while i know some expats in bkk loved going to sgn bc it was less developed, more raw and real. (one even told me the air was better--blechh!) <BR> <BR>i don't know ur travel preferences, but if u're going to bkk anyway, why not try kathmandu for a greater contrast? <BR>

I am somewhat puzzled by the question (it is a long way from Bangkok to Kathmandu; Saigon is not close, either), but, ignoring implications behind it, I cast a vote for Kathmandu. The culture is very different from that of SE Asia, the city is more manageable than Saigon, and, for just a few days, you can see more, as well as get a better sense of Nepal than you can get of Vietnam. P

I am in agreement with Penelope. I found Saigon to be nothing more than an extension of Bangkok. Kathmandu, and I have been there on 6 occasions, I find much more enjoyable and interesting. Having said this, however, 5 days is not much time to spend in Nepal. Why don't you simply fly Bangkok Air and visit Siem Reap and Angkor? Five days there would do very nicely...unless, of course, you are not into archaeological ruins.

Another vote for KTM, although I am certainly not sure how similar between bkk and Saigon can be. However a 5-day trip to Kathmandu is also quite a long one, if you are going to be there, pick another place as well, such as Pokhara, only half an hour on the plane. <BR>Welcome to asia.

Hi Dan <BR> <BR>At your place I would go either to <BR>- HANOI or <BR>- SIEM REAP/Cambodia or <BR>- LUANG PRABANG/Laos <BR>in only 5 days traveltime. I am sure you wouldn t be disappointed <BR>Make a good choice <BR>Bruno <BR> <BR>

Five days to Kathmandu...that means 2 of these days will be in transit to and from and that leaves you with only 3+ days in Kathmandu. Am I correct? I disagree strongly with one of the above posts that thinks 5 days is too much. It smacks too much of a wham! bam! mentality. There is much to see and (let me stress!) experience in the Kathmandu Valley. One can spend an entire day in Bhaktapur just walking and savouring the atmosphere. There is also Patan and Changu Naryan and many more areas in the outlying proximity of Kathmandu. I also agree with one of the above posts that either Louang Prabang or Angkor Wat would make for a much more leisurely visit. At least you would not have to spend so much time in the air....