Too much?
 

I'm about 3 weeks from departing for the land of smiles. I'm still finalizing my itinerary, and still have doubts...am I trying to get too much in? 4 days in Bangkok; 2 days in Angkor; 3 days in Mae Hong son (maybe Chiang Mai); and finally 4 days in Koh Samui. I do plan on 1 week on Kauai to lay around after Thailand. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Slowing down will mean that you will enjoy it more. If you are headed for Kauai afterwards, I'd cut out Koh Samui. I don't know how you figured your time (have you allowed for travel days?), but three full days at Angkor is considered the minimum to see the major temples. The pace of life is slow in SE Asia. If you don't slow down, you'll miss it entirely.

ncy888
Don't try to do too much! If this is your first trip to Thailand, you will be in a different culture, first of all. Just getting your body adjusted to a new time/pace/weather/food takes time! I would hate for you to wear yourself out in the heat and not be able to do anything much!

I am right now back in Bangkok after a three-day buying trip to Chiang Mai. If there is one thing I've learned on my 6 trips to Thailand, it is not to try to do too much each day. The heat is going to take its toll on you if you overdo!

Tomorrow I head back to the US after a two week visit here. We (my family and I) had things on our list to do. I really thought I'd get a lot more accomplished on this trip, but had to settle for what was do-able in a day, what with the heat and humidity and the traffic. I think there is an unwritten rule here that you might get two things done in one day if the weather isn't too hot and the traffic allows.

Anyway, do enjoy your trip. I would do Chiang Mai for 3 days, although I've not been to Angkor or Mae Hong Son at all. But Chiang Mai is very hot at this time of the year. We were lucky to withstand the heat at the shopping markets in Hangdong for more than an hour or two at a time. Then we had to seek AC and water. Drink LOTS of water... but be prepared for toilets without toilet paper... I always carry travel sized rolls myself.

Enjoy Thailand! I'm sure you'll want to return again and again.

Carol

Thanks, I've decided to cut Angkor out, which will force me to return one day!

Angkor is a spectaculor and magnificent archaelogical sites, number one in the world with its arts and sophistication. Since you had it in your original itinerary, I'd guess you are interested in this area, then don't miss it. I'd suggest you shorten your stay in Kauai(what is it anyway? some sort of a resort?) and put Angkor back in.

nyc888, Please post when you get back. I'm very eager to hear about Mae Hong Son, especially. We're trying to decide between 2-3 days at Anantara in Golden Triangle area and the Fern Resort in Mae Hong Son, both of which have received rave reviews on this site and others. Both areas seem interesting, but I think Mae Hong Son area may have more natural beauty. Wish we had time to do both, but we have to choose ... so any input would be VERY appreciated. Thanks!

Jeez. your origninal itunuary was fine.. unless your a really slow person..

there are some people who can spend an hour staring at one statue. and dine for 40% of the trip.. this may be you or maybe not.. I just think too many people are adviced on this forum too take it slow and come back some other time not knowing the post-ers(sp) budget or futer plans. ohh well.. hopefully you wont regret your choice and do come back..

cfw, just my 2cents worth. a few years ago, i flew to mhs out of chiang mai for a three day visit, and left the day after i arrived. why??? well, for me and my friend, it was toooo slow. i guess i don't appreciate natural beauty as much as i should.

Angkor would be the last thing I'd cut out - when will you be back this way. And since you're ending your trip in Kauai, you can cut the time from Koh Samui. We spent only 2-days in Angkor, but it does need a minimum of 3-days.

Definitely do NOT cut out Angkor Wat but DO spend three days there. I'd delete one of your beaches and increase your time in other places. Bangkok alone requires several days to even see the most major sights.

We just returned yesterday from Bangkok, Phuket and Siem Reap. I would not cut out Angkor since you are so close. We stayed 3 nights and had 2 full days for the sights. I know alot of people here don't think 2 days is enough but we were able to see the main temples and it was fine for us. Remember it is very HOT start early in the morning, come back for lunch and relax and go out again about 3:00pm.

I'd cut out the beach area and put more days in Bangkok. Happy Travels!

NYC888-although there are others on this board that will vehemently disagree with me, I think you were WISE to cut out Angkor. People here always tell you that you need a minimum of 3 days for Angkor, I was through with it in one day, and saw virtually everything that everyone else said would take 3 days. I did not like Siem Riep, thought it and Cambodia was a hellhole, and would never go back. I was far more impressed with the Mayan ruins of Chichen Itza in Mexico than Angkor-and both were built around the same time-12 or 13th century. Nothing in the world compares to the Valley of the Kings and Queens, and the Pyramids to me. So, like I said, I think you were right to cut it out. However, I think you should DEFINITELY consider switching 3 days to Chiang Mai-I tell you, when you get there, you're going to like it-it's not too slow, it's set up for the Western traveler, has some wonderful restaurants (particularly on the Ping river) and has the best shopping in all of Thailand in the Night Market (most of the articles one pays more for in Bangkok are in fact made in C.M.). I would suggest leaving some flexibility in your itinerary so you can check out C.M. and the North-there's some great trekking in this region as well.

Airlaw, Your post is another reminder of how different people are, and how people need to make decisions based on their interests. I spent a week at Angkor and loved every minute. I'd dreamed of visiting those temples for many years, and thought it might not be safe to visit in my lifetime (back in the days of the Khmer Rouge). People all list the "major" temples, which are stunning, but the so-called minor temples stole my heart. To be alone in a ruined temple with just the music of those Cambodian crickets was simply magical. Yes, I've been to all the major sites in Greece and Egypt, to Petra, etc, but Angkor is different. I wouldn't compare say, Chichen Itza with Angkor. They are very different. By the way, the temples at Angkor were built from the 800s to the 1100s.

Likewise, I remember you didn't like Bangkok, which I make sure to stay in for at least 4 or 5 days every trip I make to the area (about 20 times so far) and I never tire of it. On the other hand, I was quickly bored with Chaing Mai.

We're all different, so it's a good reminder to say what we liked or didn't like about a place so that others can make their own informed decisions.

I didn't see one thing "magical" about Siem Riep-I did like the Sofitel hotel and its lovely pool-and the Raffles and ITS lovely pool, but it made me uncomfortable to be surrounded by such luxury when I was in such a hellhole place. The food in the restaurants of Siem Riep, well, that which I would eat was utterly unmemorable! And the fact that the Cambodians insisted on using the US dollar as the only means of payment put me off as well-as if I needed anything else! As far as the antiquity of Chichen Itza and Angkor-well, they were built around the same time-12th century IS 1100's, yes?-but to compare Angkor to the 3-5,000 year old pyramids is comparing apples and oranges to me. They don't compare. I mean, London was quite a well-established city at the time Angkor Wat was completed-so I guess it's all relative- (most people don't realize that London is over 2,000 years old-and has parts of the ancient Roman wall running through the East End-now that's old!)

As for Bangkok-no, I didn't particularly care for it, or the barely concealed anti-Americanism I saw in the locals there-(as opposed to the genuine warmth I encountered in the north) but that is not the same as saying that I would ever counsel not seeing it, or even, that I wouldn't go again-I DO prefer Chaing Mai to Bangkok, but Bangkok is the capital, and in order to get a sense of the country and its history, one must of course visit it, see the Imperial Palace and the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, among other important sites, and judge for oneself whether one likes it or not. I definitely fancied the Jim Thompson house (as I collect Chinese antique furniture) and the Jim Thompson store, as well (and for the same reason-Asian antiques- I really loved the unique and romantic Antique House restaurant in Chaing Mai). My recommendation to nyc888 is that I think it is right to drop Angkor and concentrate on Thailand, since believe it or not, one can get really tired of looking at one temple complex for days at a time-even if parts of the temple complex are located several miles away-it begins to look the same after awhile. Like I said, I spent one day there, went to the Bayon, rode the elephants in, climbed in and around the main complex, saw all the important carvings mentioned in the guidebooks, did this all in one day, and hey, I was good to go. I think we can agree to disagree about Angkor.

KATHIE - I went to Angkor and did the 'regular' 3-day tour which was great for me. My mother has wanted to visit for a very long time (even before the Khmer Rouge) but, as you know, it hasn't been safe until relatively recently and my mother's health hasn't been great in the past few years. My parents are finally going to make the trip this November and in addition to being Hindus from India (therefore, very interested in many of the bas reliefs as well as the Churning of the Ocean of Milk -which I am told isn't depicted anywehere in India) my mother is also very well read in comparative religion. My question for you is other than the main temples (Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom/Bayon, Ta Promh, Banteay Srei), which 'minor' temples would you recommend? My mother has spent days on end having heiroglyphics explained/ translated for her in Egypt and has also visited all the ruins in Mexico. Her expectattion of the temples around Angkor are tremendous and she is particularly interested in unique bas reliefs and architecture. She only has the energy to spend about 4 hours a day visiting the temples and I would like to ensure she doesn't miss anything worthwhile. As I wasn't there long enough to see any of the less mainsteam sights, I would really appreciate any feedback you have. Thank you!

In my opinion, Angkor is special. Koh Samui isn't. Everybody has different tastes.

Airlaw:

That is not the correct way, or fair way, to judge these ancient archaelogical sites.

If the subject in question is about the general history of human civilization, then ancient Egyptians and Greeks were the greatest. They were the earlist groups with siginificant achivements. They were our best representatives for what human beings could do 4000 years ago and we are proud of them for being representing us for that period.

However, when comes to the subject of appreciating and evaluating an individual site, the age of the site must be considered in relative terms, relative to the technological development level of the particular society at the time the site was built. If you look a bit more closely at the development level of the society at the time Angkor was built, you can come up with nothing else but great admiration for the acompishment of those people. Otherwise, you are the one , as you put it, who is comparing apples with oranges.

Out of the three most comparable sites representing three very interesting civilizations with very similar technologial know-hows, Tikal in Guatemala for the Mayans, Machu Picchu in Cuzco for the Incas, and the Angkor, Angkor is by far the greatest. And in fact, out of all the sites in the world, and I have been to just about every one of them, Angkor is still one of the most impressive, if not the most impressive.

No I am not saying everyone should do there. There are many factors that might contribute to the enjoyment of a particular place, and that is a very subjective matter. But as I said in my earlier reply on this thread, Angkor was on the OP's original list so s/he must be interested in these area, so I suggested that s/he shouldn't miss Angkor.

And I still do.

I don't think there is a "fair or correct" way to judge archaological sites-it's always subjective as to what one is or is not moved by, and that is influenced by a number of external factors-but I will admit-that if you want to take similarly situated civilizations of the same epoch-then you would compare the Incas, Mayas, and Khmer-and not the Egyptians-and I for one, although not having seen Macchu Picchu, was still more impressed with the Mayan ruins than Angkor-the touts outside Angkor were absolutely the worst I have encountered anywhere, and it is truly the only place in the world (and I've been to some 50 countries and counting, I think) where I can say that I have absolutely no desire to go back -and I have no problem whatsoever expressing my opinion about it in just such a way. And amongst my little crowd, I was not alone-it was impressive, yes, but we were largely unmoved by it-and all of us were glad to get out of there and go back to Thailand.

SD3 - I'm so glad your mother will get to see Angkor. It will be a fabulous experience, I'm sure. First, I'd suggest you buy a copy of Dawn Rooney's book, "Angkor" so she can read about and view photos of the temples in preparation for the trip. I expect that particular temples will catch her eye. As you know, some of the temples are Hindu and some are Buddhist, some were one then recarved to be the other. So this may also infleunce which of the temples will seem most special to your mother.

You listed Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom/Bayon, Ta Prom, Banteay Srei which, of course, are all stunning. One recommendation I'd make is to try to visit Banteay Srei at a time when there aren't a lot of tour buses. It's a very small temple and is quickly overwhelmed by the tour groups. It's remote enough that you can't just come back later if it's crowded. Consult with your driver or guide about this. When I was there, the options for no crowds were just after sunrise or very late in the day, before sunset. Also, I'd recommend two trips to Angkor Wat. My first trip I was overwhelmed. The second trip, we went just after sunrise, There weren't more than a dozen people in the complex, and we wandered silently in a walking meditation.

Several small temples I loved: Ta Som (make sure to go all the way to the back to see the wonderful back entrance), the ruined Preah Pithu with the Buddhas on the ceiling (my favorite photo was taken there - see my traveling companion's website listed below), Preah Khan (another "jungle temple" with the trees growing through it, simultaneously holding it together and tearing it apart).

I resonated most with the small, ruined Buddhist temples, and noted several where we were the only visitors: Banteay Kdei, Krol Ko, Preah Pithu and Ta Som noted above. Your mother may be very interested in the Roulous group as it's a group of Hindu temples a short drive out of town.

You may want to take a look at my traveling companion's website, www.marlandc.com to see some photos and commentary on the various temples. This may give you or your mother more ideas on which temples to concentrate on.

Enjoy!