Madrid or Dublin

I've been to both and prefer Madrid. The Royal Palace in Madrid is amazing and it you like art, there's the Prado. I was underwhelmed by the Book of Kells in Dublin.

Dublin and Madrid are both interesting cities. Rome can be overwhelming as the first stop on a trip. On our last trip (RS Villages of South England Tour) we stopped in Dublin for a couple of days on the way. We stayed at a B&B (Windsor Lodge) in the village of Dun Laoghaire (Dun Leary). It was a very relaxing way of recovering from the overnight flight before starting the main part of the trip. The people were friendly, and we didn't have to deal with a change of language. Note that the lodging rates in Dun Laoghaire are about half what they are in downtown Dublin. Dun Laoghaire has a direct bus connection to the airport, and you can take a short commuter train ride into Dublin.

We now have a direct flight from our home airport (Hartford Bradley) to Dublin on Aer Lingus. After the pleasant experience on our last trip, we will probably stop in Dublin again on our next trip. We also stopped in Dun Laoghaire for a night on the way home, and stayed at the Ophira B&B.

Having said this, the weather in Madrid will probably be more pleasant. Ireland starts to get cool, dark and rainy in the fall.

I love both, and have been to both multiple times. However, my heart belongs to Madrid. This past May was my fifth visit and I can't wait to go back. Arriving there now seems like going home. Every time, I find new things to do and see.

I have been to each city twice. Dublin is very nice but Madrid is one of my all-time favorites--I like to say, one of the three most underrated cities in all of Europe (other two are Lisbon and Budapest). That said, Dublin is a two full days city, Madrid more like three or four full days. Personally I would consider what else I might like to see in Italy rather than tacking on a city in another country. Doing another city first for two days means one day, because the first day is a jet lagged throwaway.

Unless you really want to spend hours looking at paintings while getting over jetlag, consider Dublin. Everything's in English, it's fun, and there's a great archaeology museum (free), a couple of cathedrals, lots of pubs with live music, and two theatres with London-quality productions at a 1/3 of the price.

I would opt for Dublin - no language issues if you are feeling weary with jet lag plus 2 days is a better time to see the city - there is more to see in Madrid, so visit here when you have longer.

Another alternative would be to make your first stop in Venice Italy. Many people find the car-free atmosphere of Venice to be a relaxing way to start a trip to Italy. With this option, you would start getting used to Italian language and culture. You could book a mult-city (open jaw) flight into Venice and home from Rome.

I like to say, one of the three most underrated cities in all of Europe (other two are Lisbon and Budapest).

Who says Budapest is underrated? I read nothing but praise for the city and I don't know of anyone who has been there and not been impressed.

There's a difference between underrated and under the radar. The big icons, London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome et al attract most of the attention and therefore attract most of the tourists but those willing to look beyond them will find such gems as Budapest. Given the choice between Paris or Budapest then the latter wins hands down every time.

Neither.

Fly into Rome and spend 2 extra days either in Rome or on day trips. You will waste precious time at either DUB or MAD waiting at immigration lines and baggage carousels unless you travel only with a carry on. You'll then waist time 2 days later when you arrive at MAD or DUB flying to FCO (Rome) as you'll have to arrive probably 2 hours early and wait at the airport. You won't have to go through immigration again at FCO but if you've checked luggage, you'll have to wait again at a baggage carousel.

I would fly to Rome directly and not waste time at other airports unless you think you will NEVER, EVER travel to Europe again.

Thanks for all of those great suggestions.

Our Rome trip will be for a conference and have the opportunity to travel business class, so that I am hoping to arrive relatively not too tired. We have been to Rome several times and see this as an opportunity to have a quick stop at a destination that we hadn't been to before.

After the conference in Rome, we plan on going to the Lake Como area for 2 days, and then on to Basel for a river cruise to Amsterdam. ( I would had rather done a Rick trip, but this conference came up so late there weren't many options.)

Thanks again.

So what did you decide???

Both are great, but I would go with Madrid. Just beware that pickpockets are more likely in Madrid than Dublin.

If you go to Madrid, be sure to visit nearby Toledo and Segovia.

Neither are that memorable to me.

Interesting, two of my least favorite cities.

Madrid because it has no history, which makes it a unique city in Europe. I like old centers and Madrid has none. The Prado is a great museum but I'd trade time in Madrid for time in Toledo any day.

Dublin is one of my least favorites only because the draw in Ireland is the people and they are best experienced in small towns. Cities are, for the most part, cities. Lots of sights but also busy people living busy lives.

Of the two, I'd pick Dublin. There is history, better sights (with the exception of El Prado art gallery), and you have the advantage of doing your customs inspection before you fly home - which will save you time at your U.S. port of entry.