Paris or Rome

[BBJAP]

HELP for january this year....

I'm thinking of taking the wife for a surprise post christmas vacation... she's always wanted to go to europe and this will be a total surprise cuz she'll never guess we'd be going to europe in january....

1. will this be a good idea... i mean it's not THAT COLD there is it?

2. which city or both if i had about a week to 9 days to spend....

3. or should i just concentrate on a single country?

THANKS in advance

[konfusion666]

If the date is fixed at January, then I'd prefer Rome - purely for weather reasons.

[jonno]

I've been to both Rome and Paris, spending roughly 5 nights in each place.

I'd say for a married couple, Paris would be the better idea. There are lots of nice restaurants, scenery and tourist attractions. Although Rome does have most of those things, I wasn't impressed with the overall cleanliness of the city.

On the other hand, if you were going to spend 10 nights total in a country, I'd recommend Italy in general instead of France.

[b166er1337]

1. will this be a good idea... i mean it's not THAT COLD there is it?

Paris is cold. I was there last Christmas and it froze my ass off. It is even colder if you go to the top of Eiffle tower @ night. However, the view is definately worth it. Oh, and if you are going during Xmas, I strongly suggest you to attend the Xmas Mass in Notre Dame. It was simly an amazing experience.

Rome on the other hand, has better weather. I looooove Rome. There are way too many places to visit.

2. which city or both if i had about a week to 9 days to spend....

If you have 9 days. I would definately split them between those two places.
Paris and Rome are the top European cities and it will be great if you can do both.

3. or should i just concentrate on a single country?

Like Jonno said, if you want to get a more relaxing pace, then Italy would be a better choice.

[Talamasca]

They're both incredible cities but if you're going in the winter, I'd pick Rome. It's about 10 degrees warmer on average, which is a huge difference.

[almostfreeman]

Greek islands are comfortable that time of year.

[Bazooka Joe]

Rome hands down.

The Eiffel tower is more iconic IMO than the Coloseum (highly debateable though), however the Sistine Chapel kicks the pants off of the Louvre (again highly debateable).

Paris is beautiful with lots of scenery, which would make it more of a summertime destination. Unless you're an art nut, then spend a week in the Louvre.

With 9 days in Italy you could easily do half in Rome and half in Venice (rediculously expensive and little to do but very romantic) or half in Tuscany (fantastic place - highly recommend).

[konfusion666]

a little off topic, but I have a 2 day/1 night trip to Paris coming up in about 3 weeks. is it possible to get in and out of the Louvre just to see the "important" things, i.e. Mona Lisa? and not have to spend a whole day there?

[Bazooka Joe]

a little off topic, but I have a 2 day/1 night trip to Paris coming up in about 3 weeks. is it possible to get in and out of the Louvre just to see the "important" things, i.e. Mona Lisa? and not have to spend a whole day there?

Sort of. The way they do the entrances and exits you have to always move in one direction. You'll find yourself moving pretty quickly between everything if you want to do it in 4 hours.

There's no 20 minute tour if that's what you're thinking, but that 4 hours will fly by.

[Psubs]

a little off topic, but I have a 2 day/1 night trip to Paris coming up in about 3 weeks. is it possible to get in and out of the Louvre just to see the "important" things, i.e. Mona Lisa? and not have to spend a whole day there?

Yes. 4 of us bought a monuments and museums pass the day before then did power sightseeing the next day. I think that we got a map the day before. Go right when it opens. We ran straight for the Mona Lisa as it's the busiest, then went around the whole shabam towards the main sculptures to see. We saw everything in around 3 hours. :razz:

We had lunch, then we went to Musee D'Orsay for 2 hours, then Notre Dame as it's right there. We made use of the pass as we then went to Sacre Cour, dinner, then Arc De Triomphe to see the Eiffel Tower sparkle at 10 pm -10:15 pm (roughly).

[Talamasca]

It's been a long time since I've been there but IIRC, there were signs indicating you towards the Louvre's "Big Three" (Mona Lisa, Venus de Milo, and Nike of Samothrace) which is probably all the average tourist/non-art lover will remember anyway.

[Triple_Eh]

Rome.

Better climate.

[shybutsly]

I've never been to Rome, but I was to Paris in November a few years ago so I will comment on that.

It was cold, in fact colder than it was in Toronto. I would say that it was either slightly below zero or slightly above zero every day I was there. The advantage of this is you can see all of the tourist attractions off-peak. I had an under 5 minute wait to go up the Eiffel tower. I only had to wait in line at the Louvre because I got there before it opened and there were a few early birds queuing to get in. There were times that I was the only person in some of the rooms there. When I went to Versailles I basically had the gardens all to myself. That being said, I would love to go see the city in the spring or summer as well.

To the person asking about seeing the Louvre, I recommend that you google their website and take a look at some of the guides. You can easily map out the things you would like to see. I found it easy to get lost there though. But I didn't mind as the buildings are as much a part of the show as the art. I went twice becuase I can't spend a whole day in one place. The first morning I bought a guide and kind of wandered around. The second time I went to see specific things I had read about later in the guide that I wanted to see. I liked it a lot, but I liked Musee d'Orsay more and would rank it as my favorite art gallery in the whole world.

Also, as someone else has already said, the Cartes du Musee was well worth it. If you google it, they have a website as well.

Have fun, whatever option you choose, I am sure either Rome or Paris will make you happy.

[pipolchap]

HELP for january this year....

1. will this be a good idea... i mean it's not THAT COLD there is it?



I went to southern Italy once around February, including Rome. For some reason, alot of places don't have heating. Just a FYI.

[Talamasca]

Even if the temps are around 5-7C, I recommend wearing a warm winter coat with scarf, gloves, and hat. It may sound warm compared to a Toronto winter but when I went to Europe last February/March, the temps in most of the cities I visited were around that figure and I was wearing a leather coat. It was COLD! I forgot that in winters back home, I don't really spend that much time outside (in and out of the car/house, etc.). When you travel, you spend hours and hours outside so bundle up!

[HighFlyer]

I'd go for the 'warmer' weather in Rome, as mentioned. For 9 days, I'd split it between Rome and Florence. Both cities are only an hour away by train.

[Psubs]

I'd go for the 'warmer' weather in Rome, as mentioned. For 9 days, I'd split it between Rome and Florence. Both cities are only an hour away by train.

They might as well stop through Tuscani.

[misterchill]

They might as well stop through Tuscani.

Indeed, and maybe even spend 1/2 a day in Pisa.


I totally recommend Rome over Paris.

Paris might have the "romance" factor, but it wears off quickly. And things are *really* expensive in Paris too. Not to mention that so much about the city feels stifling... the stuffy metro, the snooty attitudes...

Rome has a million great sights, excellent shopping and delicious food.

[BBJAP]

Yeah, i was thinking rome/italy would be a better idea... we could even do a rome, florence, venice trip splitting all the time up during the entire trip...

The other concern in addition to weather would be the tourist hours, and holiday closures.... given a roman catholic culture and shorter days in general, would you think this to be a problem?... you think sites close at early hours?

Who knows... the last few days i get the feeling she much rather escape canada during winter for a warmer place.... so europe may be a big risk...

THANKS to everyone for the help so far!

[Jucius Maximus]

I'd say that Paris is THE destination in France, and most of the other areas, while still worthwhile, are significantly less famous. Italy, on the other hand, has plenty of "headliner" cities (Rome, Venice, Florence, Napoli, Sorrento.)

My point is that you want to keep your options open for future travel.

If you got to Rome, you'll cancel out lots of other possible vacations that go through all of Italy. "Specialist" vacations that do subsets of Italy are much less common. They almost always go through Rome, which is a partial waste of money if you've been there already.

But you can get various "specialist" tours that focus on rural France and lots of areas outside of Paris. So going to Paris keep your future touring options open much more than Rome. Therefore I think that if you want to do more European travel together, go to Paris first.

Just a thought.

That said, I've been to both Rome and Paris; I enjoyed Rome more because I'm interested in history, archeology, the ancient Roman Empire, etc, but they are still fantastic cities.

[heymikey]

I find Paris to be quite overrated actually and I found Vienna and Prague to be much more romantic and classy than Paris. If you're going during the winter season, definitely Rome just for the weather.

[Jyeatbvg69]

paris is sort of a city that one can either hate or love. i personally loveddd paris and i went when i was only 16 years old. i enjoyed paris twice as much as london (it was a paris london trip) but many others i know prefer london just because its more western than paris. if u like scenery, famous iconic structures (eifel tower, louvre, arc de triumphe, notre dame) then i think paris would be better, even though ive never been to rome.