I am an art history major and really want to visit Fontainebleau, but my boyfriend is dead set on Versailles. Anyone visited both? Which is better, Fontainebleau or Versailles?

They're just different.<BR>Versailles is by far grander, the word "opulent" doesn't begin to cover it.<BR>Think gold, marble,mirrors,on the walls, and furniture to match.<BR>Fontainebleau is older and more rustic in some areas, although Napoleon<BR>spent some money on furnishings when he was there.<BR>I think for art and architecture history Versailles would be the richer choice, in all senses of the word, unless your focus is on Napoleon and the Empire. <BR><BR>If you're going in warm weather, the gardens at Versailles are spectacular and are a landmark in landscaping.

Maybe it was just me, maybe because we had quite an ordeal getting to Fontainebleau that day, but I found it a huge disappointment. Mostly I got tired of hearing what "used to be here", furniture and art wise. On the other hand I've been to Versailles three times and still love it despite the crowds. Don't forget some of the other sites at Versailles as well -- the little farm village and the Petite Trianon for example.

We've been to both. Versailles is wonderful and as the other poster said opulent. Fontainebleau, I think, is in a prettier area. Nearby is Barbizon a small town that was favored by many artists--you as an art history major would know who they were better than I can recall. There is a beautiful forest near Fontainebleau. Could you do both? A third place to consider is Giverny. All of these can be done as daytrips from Paris.

as a interior designer, I've been to both<BR>Versailles and Fountainbleau. Both have<BR>alot to offer. The furnishings in Fountainbleau were more restored while<BR>Versailles is more grandeur in architecture and would be better for<BR>art history.Try to do both if you can.