Should we cut Paris short to visit Rome?
 

My fiancé and I are going to Europe for 8 days in March/April. We originally were going to spend the whole time in Paris, but now are considering splitting time between Rome and Paris. I am wondering what you think the better option is: stay in Paris or split the week? We could also do like 3 days in Rome and 5 days in Paris.

Neither of us has been to Europe yet, so we both want to make the most of it, although we know it won't be our last trip abroad.

We enjoy eating great food, walking, exploring, tours, architecture, musuems, all the touristy stuff, but on a fairly limited budget.

Thanks!!

Stick with Paris for this trip, especially if you have a limited budget. There is plenty to keep you occupied and interested, and you can daytrip to Versailles or elsewhere to get out of Paris for a bit.

I agree with Hazel. You'll be glad you don't waste a day travelling and there is so much to do. Giverny might also be nice for a day trip, depending on the weather, or even Normandy.

Since you are on a limited time as well as money budget, I would stick with just Paris. I prefer Rome to Paris personally and could easily spend 8 nights there but if Paris is your first choice for this trip, I would stick with that.

The easiest city to add would be London if you really want a second destination.

I would stay in Paris because your trip is so short and it will be expensive to do that and take up a lot of time. If you are even considering this, you must not have your air tickets yet or any reservations, which kind of surprises me. Not the reservations so much, but often airfare goes up closer to the date.

I actually bought roundtrip tickets to Paris for October, but with the strikes we decided to put it off until the spring. Flights to and from Paris or into Rome and out of Paris during the first week of April are actually cheaper than our previous credit we have for Delta, so that's why we are down to those two options.

If we did Rome, we were planning on taking an overnight train to get to Paris as opposed to flying.

No, I would stay in Paris and maybe take a daytrip or two. Taking an overnight train doesn't necessarily mean not losing a day. Most people don't sleep much on those trains. Eight days is not much time to visit a major attraction like Paris - it will fly by.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, stay in Paris. Transport to airport in Paris, flight to Rome, transport from Rome airport into Rome, etc. That would take an entire day and also really add up money wise. There is plenty to do in Paris and plenty of day trips to do closeby.

Rome is absolutely fantastic and therefore merits its own trip. Two cities of comparable caliber are impossible to digest when visited during the same journey.

I would split the trip. See some of each city, experience both cultures. You sound young and will probably sleep fine on the night train. As an alternative sightsee all day then take an evening flight to the next city not to waste a day touring. Make a list of the top sights you want to see and concentrate your 3 or 4 days of sightseeing on them. You do not need to see everything there is to see to enjoy a place. I suspect this will just be the first in a lifetime of international trips. Really whatever you choose you can't go wrong you will have a wonderful time.

Hi L,

With only 8 days, I suggest that you stay in one place.

You can always visit Rome later.

((I))

It's your honeymoon--stay in Paris! It's a wonderfully romantic city. There is so much to see and do there, 8 days will barely scratch the surface.

My husband and I spent our 41st anniversary in Paris last year, and are going back this year. We are going to Italy for three weeks--but only AFTER we get our Paris fix!

Best wishes to you, and have a lovely perfect honeymoon!

Paris with day trips.

day 1 is a jet lagged fog and day 8 is lost to packing and getting to the airport. Stay in Paris . . .

Usually I'd say split the two, because what if you didn't like Paris and here it is, you getting married, how awful that would be?! Then I thought about it again. Paris. In April.

My husband and I went in stone cold November as our first out of the country honeymoon and went nowhere else. It was his first trip abroad. Even in the freezing cold (and he HATES being cold), he LOVED Paris. Of course, I don't think our marriage would have lasted had he not loved it!

I think there are no wrong answers here. I could see a great trip either way, and I've done both these things: spent a week in Paris and split eight days between Paris and Rome. Staying put is more relaxing. But going from Paris to Rome does not have to take a whole day. When I did this trip we flew out of Paris early and had lunch in Rome. And seeing two very different but wonderful cities with different languages, food, culture, and types of attractions is incredibly stimulating.

Split the two. 4 & 4 sounds great! Overnight train between the 2 cities sounds very romantic! Ignore the naysayers; go for it!!

I love Rome and I love Paris (though I might give the edge to Rome, but of course that's just a personal reaction). If you're young, energetic and don't feel you need a comprehensive experience of either city, I say split the week.

The only thing is that for many people--not me!--it's easier to fall in love with Paris in just a few days than Rome. For whatever reason, Rome seems to take time. It's like it wasn't built in a day. So my advice would be if you do include Rome, just go for kicks and don't marry yourselves to a "We must see the Vatican. We must see the Sistine Chapel. We must spend hours in the Forum" agenda.

Although I did all those things on my first trip and was totally smitten.

Have fun!

Stay in Paris. Eight days is not enought time to experience all of its charms. And as several have suggested, you can always take a couple of day trips (Versailles, Giverny, Chartres).