I am doing a layover on my return from Israel to Miami. Because the price is so similar, I have to decide between a layover in Rome or Paris, neither of which I have ever been to. I am a 52-year-old single non-wordly traveler who is, of course, unemployed, so money is a concern, too.

However, you only go 'round once in life. So which would you choose ... and why!

Without knowing your interests it's hard to tell. You can;t go wrong with either.

Paris has a host of wonderful museums, other charming sights and great cafes for people watching, but much of it is an essentially modern city (large areas were razed and rebuilt in the 1870s).

Rome is, well Roman - and if you're a history buff not to be missed. to walk into the Colosseum and Forum and think about who lived there (and how well) 2,000 years ago is simply incredible. Also wonderful dining and cafes for people watching.

How long is your layover?

Without knowing anything about you or your interests but just based on my own feelings, I would choose Rome.

I think Paris is a lot easier to digest for a first-timer. It took me three trips to Rome before I came to appreciate (and now, love) it.

As StCirg said Paris for a first time traveler is easier to take; Rome is an acquired taste: nosier, more crowded and harder to get around. Great place if you want to take the time to get used to it. But Paris always beckons. We will succumb to its charms in a few weeks.

Paris.

Another Paris vote. Even if it's a short layover, you can get an "eye full" pretty easily in Paris. I'd be content if I could stand for just a few minutes at Place de la Concorde and drink in the beautiful sites in every direction! Or if I only had time for one little boat ride on the Seine at sunset. Ahhhh. Yes, Paris.

I love the old alley-like streets of Rome, but they weren't made for a quick visit.

If in the summer I would probably pick Paris because it is not likely to be as hot.

I have been to Rome 3 times and Paris only once.
I warmed up to Rome faster than Paris.
Not to offend, but I find the Italians friendlier and more accomodating...

jetset, that comment about Italians being friendly is odd to me because not all Italians are the same.

Imagine saying that all Americans are friendly. That is patently untrue.

I think Italians from small towns would be more friendly than Romans or Milanese because they are used to a slower pace of life and take time to talk.


In my opinion, OP, you have to decide what you are interested in. Do some research. Find out what you have a desire to see--the Louvre or the Vatican, the Eiffel Tower or the Spanish Steps.

I, of course, would pick Paris. Paris, for me, is the greatest city in Europe.

Thin

As noted, you can't go wrong with either, and I have done both cities alone and with others. If you had asked me two years ago I would have said Rome. Now I would say Paris.

For someone who has been to neither place, there are a number of considerations in deciding which to recommend. I can say, unequivocally that Rome is far and away my favorite (having been to both places several times). But Paris probably is more accessible to someone who has not experienced a great deal of international travel. Certainly Rome will be hot and chaotic. But Rome's chaos is one of the things I love about it. If your time is short, I guess Paris might be an easier fit.

MartaD took the words right out of my mouth--eerie! I'd choose Rome (and I love Paris) but that's me. What do you want to see, chaver? What time of year? How exhausting do you think your Israel itinerary will be?

Would still be helpful to know how long your layover is.

MartaD and Leely -- agree wholeheartedly. VERY easy public transportation in Paris and probably better for a first time traveler. Jetset -- I agree with you, too! I did find that the Italians (at least that I encountered -- not trying to speak for the whole country, as I'm sure you weren't either) were a friendlier bunch. Not that anyone in Paris was rude, but there is a welcoming feeling I had in Rome that I didn't get in Paris.

Paris is a classy cocktail party.
Italy is a family picnic.

History, Italian men and Italian food: Rome
Architecture, good meals, people watching and Parisian women: Paris

I would choose Rome. Much prefer Rome to Paris in every aspect Food, history and a vibrant street scene which I completely enjoy.

I have never found Paris to be a hospitable city and I don't much care for the food or the 'tude - after 5 visits trying to figure out what all the fuss is about, I won't go back.

Either would be a wonderful introduction to Europe.

Unfortunately the OP did not give enough info - how long a layover? what time of year? - for anyone to give much of an answer.

Personally, I love both cities. I think Rome is easier to see in a shorter amount of time. Paris seems more spread out and there are more places that are "don't miss."

Both cities have good public transportation.