Paris, Rome experiences and differences
 

I'm an American visiting Europe for the first time in March. We've narrowed our list down to arguably two of the most heralded cities in the World and are having a hard time deciding since I really want to go to both at some point in my life.

I want to tour the major historical sites and museums in both and experience the food, culture and people so hopefully I'll visit the other city not selected at a later date.

I'm curious from those who have visited both cities as to their experiences there and if both lived up to your expectations. Essentially, what was your personal experiences in both and what would say are the major differences between the two. Most say that Italians are generally warmer, particularly to Americans, than the French. Not too concerned about this but every factor counts. I'll only have 7 or 8 days to visit one city on this trip and am wondering if time and the weather in mid March should be factors. Thanks.

I think it depends on what you're interested in. Rome is clearly the winner on historical sites and related museums - you'll never believe it until you're wondering down streets past buildings that are 2000 years old. In my experience what makes Rome so incredible is that a major capital can house such ancient artefacts all over the place - most major cities have been considerably more developed without regard to their history in the last couple of hundred years.

Of course there's also The Vatican.

If you're at all interested in art, then consider if you prefer classical/Renaissance or 19th/20th Century. If the latter, choose Paris.

Food? Do you prefer light, fresh food with simple good ingredients or richer, sauce based cuisine. That's a very sweeping summary of the 2, but I know my prefernce is for lighter Italian cuisine.

Weather? It shouldn't be a major factor for city touring, but Rome will probably be a little warmer.

People? Well, capital cities are never the best places to meet the nicest people, and the Parisians particularly have a reputation (even amongst the french) for their rather arrogant attitude. However, I doubt any of this would really affect your trip.

For me it would come down to which city has the most to see of what's of interest to me.

I can see you want to spend a good amount of time in one city which is good, but if the decision is really that hard, then you cold always consider spending most of you time in one place and do a couple of days in the other to get a flavour for the future.

I should add that if this is your first trip to Europe, then either city will blow your mind. You really can't go wrong.

I've been to Paris 6 times and to Rome twice. Frankly, I love Paris more but I'd be hard pressed to explain why. These two cities are so different from one another. If I were choosing between the two of them in March I would choose Rome simply for the weather. It's bound to be warmer.

If the weather were not a factor I think I would still advise Rome. So much of our lives, even today, is founded on the roots of the culture and history of this great city.

Rome is a large city and you'll not find the "warm Italian welcome" that you would find in smaller towns/villages so don't let the alledged French lack of warmth (which is only alledged IMHO) and the Italian warmth be a factor.

Major differences: Roman churches. What oppulence! Romanesque and Gothic churches in Paris can't compare. There are so many of them and each is more awe inspiring than the one before.

There's tons more to say but I have to actually do some work how.

If this is your first time in Europe, I'd definitely go for Rome.

Hard to say why...

Weather will probably be better in Rome, and I think that the whole experience will be a little easier in Rome than in Paris. I think that they are both "aggressive" cities (in the same way as NY, London, or any other great capital), but Rome is a bit more laid back...

They are both spectacular...

Man, this is hard!

Flip a coin, you can't go wrong with either...

I have been to Paris several times and Rome once. I am going back to Rome next month. Both are wonderful, but they are very different. Last March, in fact, I went on a package from Gotoday.com with my college aged daughter where we spent the first three nights in Paris and then flew to Rome for five nights. The differences between the two cities made it a very stimulating, wonderful trip.

In Paris there is lots of wonderful art and history. I love the French language and literature and music and food, so to be surrounded by these things is a very heady mix for me. There is a very active nightlife featuring classical music, ballet, opera, jazz, and movies, many of which are shown in their original language with French subtitles ( a great way to brush up on one's French skills).

I feel about Paris sort of the way I feel about New York City. There is plenty to do there, just being there is stimulating, I love the atmosphere and don't have to see anything in particular because I am pretty familiar with it now. And by the way, I have loved my interactions with the people in Paris. People have been friendly and warm and curious about Americans.

Rome, on the other hand, blew me away with its sheer volume of magnificent classical sites in the middle of the city. I think there is more to see and do in Rome than in any other place I have ever been. Standing in the Forum, in the Colosseum, in the Vatican, is like being transported back to the times of myths and legends.

The layers upon layers of debris and construction in the city are mirrored by the layers of civilization in the art in the museums and monuments. There are Renaissance sculptures based on the Roman version of Greek mythology. Churches on top of pagan temples. Millenia of civilization compressed into one small space. Broken bits of columns from antiquity form a nice place to sit down and wait for the bus.

Rome seems to me much more chaotic than Paris, a little harder to figure out, but this might be due to my greater competence in French than in Italian. I have been studying Italian the past several months to try to catch up. Fewer people seemed to speak English in Rome than in Paris, although when I mentioned this previously in this forum, others piped in to say that they found the opposite to be true.

We didn't explore as much music or other evening entertainment in Rome, and it didn't seem as if there was as much of it to see. Operas were available, but we didn't go. Movies are almost all dubbed in Italian, making that a less appealing option. Long, leisurely dinners took up our evenings. Italian food is great, very different from French, hard to choose favorites.

The weather in mid-March, which is when we went to both cities, was clearly nicer in Rome than in Paris. It was early spring in Rome, and although the Romans were all wearing heavy coats and scarves, we were comfortable in light jackets. In Paris it is colder, of course, and one March when I went to Paris it rained most of the week.

Good luck with your decision. Hard to go wrong, I think. And if you go to one city this time and the other one next time, you can do your own comparing and contrasting.

I somewhat disagree that Rome has some sort of corner on the "historical sites" since there are many historical sites in Paris however they aren't as old. If you enjoy "antiquities" then Rome obviously has all that in spades.

I agree that the weather at that time of year would probably be more favorable in Rome. In terms of the "grand design" I think you'd find Paris, in some ways, to seem more "grand" with the very wide boulevards whereas Rome has a much more Mediterranean flavor to it.

You have not told us of any particular interests other then general ones and perhaps if we knew about those we could make your decision easier. A lot of Rome is certainly about ancient and somewhat faded civilizations and, of course, the Roman church as obviously evidenced in Vatican City, the largest church (on Earth??)St. Peter's and the vast Vatican Museum....and so much more. Paris seems to be about civilizations and ways of life that aren't quite as faded, the Louvre museum which is the largest palace in Europe, and the Roman church as evidenced by numerous churches, Notre Dame in particular and so much more...

Rome seems more laid back despite the Vespas, the Italian hand gestures, and those pickpockets at Termini. But regardless, you'll love either of them...too bad you don't have time to do both. But, have a great trip.

Wow! This really helps put it into perspective and I don't feel quite as bad now in wrestling with the decision. Glad to hear that I won't go wrong with either. You've all given me some things to really think about and good info. Thanks, Kate, Adrienne and Jean Valjean. I am curious, Adrienne, that you recommended Rome but said you liked Paris better but couldn't say why. Your arguments for Rome seemed to suggest you preferred Rome (was this just for a first time visitor?).

And thanks to Nikki and Jon Jon as well. I probably am a bit more interested in the cathedrals and antiquities, but also know that I could fall in love with just the ambience, magic and grandness of Paris. Definitely deserves two separate trips!

In addition to the historic sites, I'm interested in flea markets, great cafes/restaurants (assuming either is great here), places/parks to just sit and look at great, panoramic views and "take in the city," and side trips to the country (day or two) that are close to either (can rent a car if necessary).

First things first: Let me congratulate you for picking two of the best cities to visit, and for having the good sense to devote an entire week to the experience.

In mid-March, I think the weather is <i>just enough</i> of a factor to sway the decision toward Rome.

If weather wasn't a factor at all, I'd say Paris. It is the perfect European city...very efficient, clean, beautiful, historic, etc.

But there is no more historic city in the world than Rome. So much to see. And the food rocks. Enjoy.

I have a slightly different take on your question. I've been to Paris 10 or so times, to Rome, 3. They are both fabulous cities and you will enjoy whichever you choose. However, with 8 days, I would choose Paris. When I go to Rome, I want to see other parts of Italy and 8 days doesn't leave you much time. It is hard for me to visit Rome and not want to include Venice or the Amalfi Coast or Florence/Tuscany. It is not so hard to visit Paris and just take a day trip or two. Why not go to Paris this time and wait until you can plan a longer trip so you can see more of Italy when you visit Rome.

For art after 1800, Paris. There's the Louvre, the d'Orsay, the Marmottant for Monet etc. etc.

I agree that you couldn't go wrong with either city - they're both incrdible.

People: I don't really think there's a lot of difference in friendliness/ attitude towards Americans. I think it's more about how the citizens of each city see themselves. Romans love to love, they love to be friendly and outgoing and happy - and this is reflected in their behavior. Parisians on the other hand love to be seen as sophsticated and cool - and so sometimes come across as unfriendly - when it's just their persona. (Given that, I have met a couple of very unfriendly people in Rome and many life of the party types in Paris.)

Food: Italian (outside of Venice) is always wonderful. Parisian is usually very good - but ocassionally not - it's easier to get along on pretence.

What to see: different but both incredible - with the obvious difference in emphasis by century. (By the way, Paris dates back to fairly early roman times - although not as early as the Etruscan forebears of Rome.)

You may end up making weather the deciding factor. In Rome you will have slightly higher temps and a better chance of greenery and flowers.

I'm very envious!

Great post and I'm interested in the responses b/c I haven't yet been to Rome (but really like Paris). I know there are some posters who don't like Rome and/or Paris, so I hope they'll contribute their perspective.

Hi bdbrooks,

I had to cut my answer short to get some work done so you didn't get a complete answer from me. And yes, I was thinking about you as a first-time visitor to Europe.

I do prefer Paris, as I originally stated. It seems a more intimate city and I'm more familiar with it. I feel the possibilities are endless and varied in Paris.

That said, I would still say that you should begin your European journey in Rome. I don't feel that there can be comparisons between the two cities since they are so different. Rome offers a view of ancient history and civilization that you don't find in Paris. You've already expressed your interest in history so why not begin in a place that has historically influenced much of Europe.

Additionally, it is the seat of Catholicism. It doesn't matter what religion you subscribe to or if you have any religious beliefs. Much of Europe is Catholic. As you visit the churches (there are many of them and they are very large) you'll get a very different view of the importance of religion on a culture and power of the Catholic church than you would in the US. And before anyone jumps on me with the &quot;power of the Catholic church&quot; comment please keep in mind I'm speaking historically.

Baroque art and architecture appeals to me and Rome has both in abundance. I also love sculpture and although Paris has marvelous sculpture museums (Louvre, Rodin, Maillol) I don't think the artists found there can compare with Bernini whose influence pervades much of Rome.

As a rule I find food in Italy better than in France. You can eat more inexpensively and better in Rome than in Paris.

I hope this more comprehensive answer helps. Please let us know what you decide and why.

If you have the time, why don't you watch a couple of movies/read a couple of books and see where the inspiration takes you. You will find postings on here recommending many of these. You should start with Roman Holiday for movies.

My own take:

Museums - a toss up, and it really does depend on what period of art interests you most, but the Louvre has lots of the older stuff just like you can see in Rome.

Parks - I would give the edge to Paris.

Food - It depends on your tastes of course, but it is really hard to be Rome for tasty food.

History - There is no way that Rome beats Paris for history, unless you are talking about ancient history specifically. It all depends on the period again.

Daytrips - I have not taken daytrips from Rome but have researched them. I completely agree with the opinion that Paris is a great place for them. You have Chartres, Versailles, and many others.

Getting around - Paris has crazy traffic but is definitely less hectic and easier. The subway is much more extensive for one.

Beauty - Rome may be hectic, but may also have slightly more charm. However, both are stunning.

Photogenic - (can't help it, since I am a photographer) - Rome may beat Paris because of its greater variety of things to see and its color, but it is a photo finish (ha ha). Take a look at a book of Cartier-Bresson's work for inspiration on Paris.

Churches - Rome wins (hey, it does have the Vatican among others), but only narrowly. Notre-Dame, Sacree-Coeur, Ste. Chapelle, St. Sulpice, and others in Paris are not chopped liver after all.

Ambience - Paris is less chaotic again, but both have romance down to a science. If only they could catch up with Venice.

My personal favorite is Paris because it just seems a little less crazy, but I do agree that in March Rome might be the better choice for weather. In summary, I advise you to go to Paris and go to Rome when you have time to take in more of Italy at the same time. You already know you have to see both at some point anyway, so that does make the choice a little easier.

I love both, but as a first time visitor, I think I would choose Paris. There are more choices - hotels, restaurants, shopping - than in Rome (or just about any other city on earth). Its public transit is amazing and everything is easily accessible. The nightlife is pulsing and the attractions are multitude. I also think the logistics - airport transfer options, flight options - are much better in Paree.
That said, you'll have a great time in either: The historic grandeur of Rome or the forever living in the present vibe of Paris. They're two of the world's greatest cities and everyone should get to experience them.

Maybe this is a silly question (and perhaps irrelevant to bdbrooks), but is one city more economical than the other? I always had the sense that Rome was more expensive (of course it sounded that way pre- Euro with 0000's of Lira, etc.) At least prior to the recent chg in the dollar, Paris was quite reasonable, even compared to major US cities.

As far as I can tell from a tourist perspective Paris and Rome are fairly similar in costs. (And i've done 3 trips including both in the same trip.) Paris has never been a bargain compared to major US cities except for a couple of years when the dollar was extemely strong - and even then it was just less expensive - not cheap.

Hi bd,

I usually recommend Paris for first-time visitors, mainly because if you die before you get there you will be disappointed.

However, for mid-March, the weather in Rome might be milder.

nytraveler: My perspective is mid 90-s through 2002, when the dollar was reasonably strong. During those visits, for example, lodging was reasonable compared to the US, where I have difficulty finding ok, but not fancy, lodging in a convenient downtown location for less than $100/night (but such is (was) not uncommon in Paris). I'm sure things have changed before and since as the dollar fluctuates.

There's no argument that they are both fabulous cities, but for a first trip, I'd say go to Paris. It's far more manageable - smaller, better public transportation, and not as hectic and overwhelming as Rome.

Even with the weak dollar, I don't think Paris is any more expensive than New York.

The majority of replies are saying Rome, yet more people say they have been to Paris more times than they have to Rome. Do you wonder why? There is just something about Paris. I think for a first time visit it's more relaxed, easier to get around. The metro will take you everywhere and is very easy to use - which is not the case in Rome. I also think Paris is less expensive, not cheap, but I found the equivalent type of hotel and restaurant were less expensive in Paris than in Rome. So I'd probably pick Paris despite the weather factor. However, that would be almost enough to sway me towards Rome in March. I visited Rome in the summer and will definitly go back in another season. I've had good and bad weather in Paris in March (and also good and bad in July for that matter).

It really is pretty much a toss up.

Nobody has addressed this (maybe I missed it) but Paris tends to be less expensive for a North Amaerican visitor, IMHO. Both are the perfect choice for a first time visitor.

Isabel:

Almost everytime I've been to Europe I've been in Paris. The main reason is that it is one of the key entry points to Continental Europe. Rome can hardly be defined as an entry point, being where it is... unless you are going someplace in Italy.

I just wrote (and erased) two paragraphs trying to answer bdbrooks' question... really hard to give a good answer... so I'll go back to my original suggestion: Flip a coin! You can't go wrong with either.

Well, we found Paris hotels to be very expensive (can't compare personally to New York since we live there) but on our last trip we couldn't find anything we wanted for less than about $250. Breakfast is outrageous (way more than New York hotels) and we found dining expensive (but we're from an area with tons of very reasonable good restaurants).

We found Rome to be less expensive for good meals (average dinners - not splurges) and no more expensive for hotels.

I've been to Rome four times and Paris three, and I definitely prefer Rome.

For museums, I think the Vatican equals the Louvre. This is the category where I think there is the least to choose between them.

For food, I found Rome much, much better than Paris. Using the 'go slightly out of the main streets and find somewhere full of locals' method I have had many amazing meals in Italy, often for less than 15 euros including wine (not a typo!). I've yet to have a truly great meal in France and have certainly never had a decent one in Paris for less that 30 euros.

For sights other than art museums, Rome wins hands down. The Coliseum, the Pantheon and the Forum are all incredible.

And finally, the shopping in Italy is great!

Do let us know what you decide...

Food better in Rome than Paris? That's definitely open to debate.

Well, I have to say that you all have convinced me on the many attributes of both Rome and Paris and that I feel stronger than ever that I have to do both soon, particulary after reading Papagena's and a few other responses on the reasons to visit Rome.

Having said that my travel companion and I have chosen Paris this time for several reasons. First I do have limited time so my time in Italy would be compromised a bit since I want to see Tuscany/Umbria and Pompeii/Amalfi Coast and would be forced to choose one or the other on this trip (something I think that Mamc pointed out).

Five or 6 days in Paris and a day trip or so I think makes sense for this trip and it would allow me time to hit some of the major sites I want to see in Paris and get a flavor of the city (although I'm sure it will still seem like not enough).

Second, Paris does seem to be a bit easier to navigate based on feedback. I've also had already purchased some French guidebooks and language CDs when I thought I was going a year ago. Also, quite a few of you said it was a toss up and &quot;if weather were a factor&quot; than go with Rome. In looking at the temps in both lately, they aren't that far apart and I hate to let something so unpredictable as weather be the deciding factor. I don't mind a bit of a chill....I just hope it doesn't rain much of the time we're there, but this is something you just can't predict. We'll hope for the best. I've always wanted to see Paris at night and am very excited to have the opportunity to do so.

As soon as we return, I know I'll be thinking of planning my next trip to Italy, perhaps next fall. Thank you for all of your help! Now, if we can decide on where to stay.....perhaps the Marais or Rue Cler district. I hear the 6th is convenient. Will continue to read the threads on this topic as well.

Hi bd,

For your stay in Paris, you might want to consider the Hotel Bonaparte in the 6th.

I can't let Ira's comment that's as good as anything ever uttered by Yogi Berra pass without highlighting it for Fodor's posterity:
&quot;...if you die before you get there [Paris] you will be disappointed.&quot;
Right on, Ira!
And to bdbrooks: May your you only be faced with a dilemmas like this in your lifetime!

Howard,

I agree with you and Ira...I would be disappointed if I die before I see Paris and that comment made a lot of sense to me personally! Thanks for the hotel suggestion, Ira. It sounds like a very good option.

Oh, bdbrooks, my comment about Ira's comment was made in jest! Think again about his words and what he said!

I personally would be disappointed to die before hearing the next clever post ira makes on this board.

Do not know when you are planning to be in Rome, but I am trying to arrange for a private tour guide to take myself and my 14 year old daughter through some of the more well-known sites (for history, depth and to avoid lines). We are planning to do this Monday 3/15. The privage guides are costly and often take 3-4 persons at the same cost. Would love to find someone to join with us. If interested, send me e-mail [email protected]. Thanks!