Paris or Rome

[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.