BootsnAll Travel Community

I've got five weeks in the region this June but plan on spending the majority in Thailand. I dont want to make the rookie mistake of trying to fit too much into my trip and so need to decide whether to spent 10-14 days in Cambodia or Vietnam - which is more worthwhile?

I've heard that Angkor Wat is an absolute must see but that the rest of Cambodia can be somewhat grim. In that case, what are people's thoughts on flying to Vietnam from Thailand and then hitting Siem Reap overland on the way back?

Also, which region of Vietnam is better, N or S?

Yes, Cambodia can be a bit grim. A visit to the Tuel Sleng school can bum one out for months.

That said, I prefer Vietnam. I prefer the north, and you may want to take advantage of the Bangkok-Hanoi flight on Air Asia.

Thanks for great tip, I will check it out.

I'd previously heard the North was ultra communist = not as welcoming to tourist and not as fun...myth?

I soooo agree with Static!
I prefered Vietnam to Cambodia, and I absolutely LOVED the North!

And I sure didn't feel unwelcomed! Quite the opposite actually...

Yep, I'll agree with that. Vietnam has a lot more to offer than Cambodia, with the notable exception of the Angkor Temples which are amazing. I too would recommend the north of Vietnam. Hanoi and around.

Jonny.

I am going to disent here and say Cambodia! It's not as pretty but its more relaxed and the people are nicer! Vietnam had some RUDE locals!

I've been to both and prefer Cambodia as well. The main reason is the people. The Cambodians are simply a much more pleasant lot while the Vietnamese seem to be too loud and aggressive for my liking. Before that trip, I'd never gotten into an argument with a hotel employee, but there, it happened at every place I stayed, including the overnight train to Lao Cai.

I'd say Angkor Wat alone makes the trip to Cambodia worthwhile. I also found the beaches at Sihanoukville nice enough (but after all that time in Thailand, they probably won't impress you that much). Phnom Penh isn't the nicest city in Asia, but if you prepare for it with a lunch of "happy pizza," it can be quite interesting.

Vietnam (okay I only visited the north) does have a lot to offer. Hanoi is a beautiful city and the water puppets are amazing. Sapa is also beautiful but being harassed constantly by people trying to sell me handicrafts and drugs while trekking around the hills didn't help my impression of the place. Halong Bay is a stunning place as well, especially if you're an early riser and get out swimming whilst the rest of your boatmates are still asleep.

Looking at my post, Vietnam looks more interesting, but the people really must have been bad as I have somewhat negative memories of the place.

I have not been to Vietnam so can't compare. I loved Cambodia....the people are just lovely. Maybe I loved it more because I share some genes with them.

I remember this one moment when two little girls passed me by on the road on their fathers bicycle..legs dangling from the back of the cycle. They gave me the biggest smile possible. All the pain of the journey from Siem Reap to Battambang vanished at moment. All the haggling with the hotel owner, the long journey, the touts..all was forgotten and forgiven. I still remember that smile.

Two weeks is not enough for Vietnam, while it's just about perfect for Cambodia. And because I like Cambodia a lot better than I like Vietnam, I certainly will recommend Cambodia to you. Visiting the tribes in the mountains in the north of Vietnam is a good thing to do, but it is not entirely unlike what you can do in the north of Thailand, for instance out of Chiang Mai, so maybe you'll already have "done that" by then.

Cambodia's HISTORY is grim. It's young population, however, seem quite optimistic about the future, so discussing various matters with them can be interesting. Mind you, you WILL feel bad for them, but tell yourself that things can only get better in Cambodia, and if you feel like it, do help people or various organizations around the country with some money or some effort.

Also, take your time in Siem Reap. Get a three day pass to Angkor Vat. There's PLENTY to see, so doing the one day thing will be the biggest mistake on your trip. Unless you're planning on getting some cheap breast implants in a Bangkok back alley, that is. That would be slightly worse.

You can see photos I took on a trip to both Cambodia and Vietnam at http://www.pvv.org/~bct/indokina/ if you want to. There's some more travel advice for the countries hidden in the captions.

Happy trails!

Bjørn

Pretty hard to compare. I think it's better to know your time and your schedule. Cambodia is nice, it's like back to the time. You're always surrounded by history and the hard living conditions of the people. While Vietnam has more in term of sceneries and places to go.

quote:

That said, I prefer Vietnam. I prefer the north, and you may want to take advantage of the Bangkok-Hanoi flight on Air Asia.

Even though I have not been to Cambodia, I would have to agree with Static.

Fly cheap from Bangkok to Hanoi. Enjoy Sapa and the Bay of Islands. The North of Vietnam is much more stunning that the South.

Good luck.

quote:

I'd previously heard the North was ultra communist = not as welcoming to tourist and not as fun...myth?

The only communists I saw in Vietnam were in the government. Everyone else is more interested in making money - whether they live in the North or the South.

Hanoi definitely feels more "Old School," but I think that there is more of a French-colonial influence than a Communist cloud of dispair.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomadic Matt:
I am going to disent here and say Cambodia! It's not as pretty but its more relaxed and the people are nicer! Vietnam had some RUDE locals!

I have to agree wtih Matt. Vietnam may be prettier, but the locals in Cambodia are much kinder. Also, in Cambodia it is still possible to get off the beaten track (to some extent) - something I found difficult in Vietnam.