Fodor's Travel Talk Forums

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)
-   Europe (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/)
-   -   London:Rome 4:4 or 5:3 (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/london-rome-4-4-or-5-3-a-921339/)

getcrimpy Jan 26th, 2012 12:20 AM

London:Rome 4:4 or 5:3
 
I am planning a trip to Europe, my first time there and I have planned initially to have 4 full days in London and another 4 full days in Rome (excluding traveling and transiting time). I am now thinking if i should rearrange it such that I have 5 full days in London and 3 full days in Rome instead because it somehow feels like there is more to cover/do in London. Any thoughts?

alanRow Jan 26th, 2012 12:41 AM

I'd go for the 5:3 on the assumption that you'll reach London first and will be jet-lagged.

I'm assuming you have considered an open jaw / multi city ticket to remove the need to return to London to travel home.

A_Brit_In_Ischia Jan 26th, 2012 03:20 AM

I too would suggest 5:3, but for a different reason...

Once you've seen Rome, Britain's capital (my old home) may never again appeal as much - so spend a decent amount of time there this visit!

But even all 8 days would hardly let you scratch Rome's almost 3000 year history...

http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde/lazio

Peter

flanneruk Jan 26th, 2012 04:34 AM

Honestly, this is like asking strangers whether Italian food's better than French.

If you're a Catholic classical scholar, or a fan of Baroque art, it's 8:0 for Rome. If you're a fan of PBS Masterpiece Theater girlie series, it's 8:0 for London. And both would agree 8 days is absurdly little for either place (though the more I see of Rome, the happier I am I live near London). Personally I'd just choose one. Or flip a coin if you thought you'd never be able to return.

tahl Jan 26th, 2012 04:42 AM

They're both wonderful, of course. I think I'd just get a guidebook and read the London & Rome chapters and see which one has more sights and neighborhoods that you're aching to taste.

mamcalice Jan 26th, 2012 05:07 AM

It depends on your interests but if I were taking the trip, knowing what I know after many visits to each, I would do 4:4. There is much too much to cover in both cities to do them justice in 4 or 5 days but 4 days will give you a good overview.

janisj Jan 26th, 2012 12:03 PM

Since we don't know why you chose these two cities -- no one can give you useful advice. What do you want to see? What sorts of things interest you?

W/o knowing anything about you--I'd personally do 5 London/3 Rome simply because of the jetlag factor for a day or two in your arrival city. (if you were landing in Rome and flying home from London then I'd recommend 5 Rome/3 London)

But again--WHY did you choose these two cities -- then we can give better advice.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:59 AM.