London:Rome 4:4 or 5:3
Jan 26th, 2012, 12:20 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Jan 26th, 2012, 12:41 AM
#2
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 19,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I'm assuming you have considered an open jaw / multi city ticket to remove the need to return to London to travel home.
Jan 26th, 2012, 03:20 AM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Jan 26th, 2012, 04:34 AM
#4
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jan 26th, 2012, 05:07 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Jan 26th, 2012, 12:03 PM
#7
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.
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.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JerLon
Europe
49
Feb 4th, 2012 05:10 AM
