Rome or Budapest?

Wow, that is a tough one. If you've never been to either, I would lean towards Rome - for the ancient history and the museums (especially the Vatican museum, St Peter's basilica, Sistine chapel). It's just so iconic and hard to pass up. However, having said that, I've been to both and if a choice of which one to return to it would be Budapest. I loved seeing the sights in Rome but did not warm up to it as a city the way that many have and I have no desire to go back. Budapest, on the other hand, really resonated with me for some reason and I can't wait to go back and spend more time there. Loved everything about it - people, sights, the vibe, wandering around even at night I always felt safe - all of it.

I would go for Budapest. Rome is too wild, crossing streets dangerous, too many pickpockets per square kilometer. That's because I saw both. But if you haven't seen any then you should start with Rome. Magnificent history and Italian intensity of life.

I've been to both in the last couple of years, and Budapest is now one of our new favorite cities.
But Rome is an especially important city to civilization. I'd suggest staying there 4 days minimum, too. It's a place you can overdose on history, art, architecture and food so you'll be very satisfied.
We went to Budapest, Vienna and Prague on one trip, and loved them all. They're all such great European cities.

How long? What time of year? What are your interests? Where else have you been?

It's not comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and bicycles.

Too incomplete a question to be able to answer. I always say the first trip to Europe should be 4 days each in London, Paris and Rome. Second trip 4 days each in Prague, Vienna and Budapest. Then you will know what interests you and you can begin to exploit those interests accordingly.

Both are great places, but this is like comparing a snack to a full dinner meal.

Budapest can be seen on a long weekend of 3 days, while a week in Rome is not enough. Rome has St. Peter's with its wonderful museum, the incomparable Sistine Chapel and more. Also, ancient history in Rome is amazing.

Rome does have it s pickpockets, but if you take precautions like money belt or neck wallet, you should be fine.

Do some research on what there is to see in both cities. TripAdvisor is a good source, just type in things to do.

Thanks to those of you who replied. I know my post is very vague. We're in the early planning stages of our September trip and our thoughts are all over the map. Every day we change our mind. It will be our 4th trip and we've never had such a difficult time deciding.

Had drinks last night with a dear friend who will join us for part of the trip. She would like to add Rome - it would be her 2nd visit; or Budapest - she's never been. We have not been to either. Here's what we have not changed our mind on. Traveling early September for four weeks:

Flying in to London. (We were in London for just two days a couple of years ago. Barely hit the top attactions.)

Cotswolds - 2-3 days
York
Edinburgh

Then we just can't decide which direction to go. I know we can see much more in UK, but I think we want to fly south. Problem is where?

Rome and Almafi Coast and Cinque Terre
Budapest and maybe Vienna
Barcelona and other parts of Spain
Barcelona for 4-5 days, then hop to Rome

We enjoy wandering, eating, drinking, shopping. Maybe a few museums. Love historical sites and beautiful churches.

Have to decide soon - mostly to maintain our sanity!

One thing you might do is take a look at the open-jaw (multi-city) fares coming back from Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, Naples, Florence, Pisa, Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. One may turn out to be many hundreds of dollars cheaper than the others, which might help in making your decision. I say that because all of your options are good ones, and they all involve a flight from Great Britain, so there's not much difference in the difficulty factor.

One thing I would not do is combine Barcelona and Rome. That's one flight too many for me, and there's tons to see in both Spain and Italy.

In booking my April trip I briefly considered Rome, then decided Amsterdam really had more that would appeal personally. I added 3 days in Vienna and then 4 in Budapest--this would be my 3rd visit to Budapest in as many years, so clearly that's my favorite place and I would choose it again and again over places I haven't been. I'm funny that way, but it's just that wonderful.

Do Budapest and Rome. There are a couple of nonstop Discount flights between the two for under $100.

Hands down, Budapest. I am one of few people who do not enjoy Rome. I've been there twice and have no desire to return. I find it too busy, crazy and hectic for my liking. I liked it less the second time than the first. Oddly enough, I liked Budapest more the second time than the first time. The second time I learned how to use the public transportation and also spent an afternoon at the bathes and loved every minute of it.

I've been to Budapest and liked it a lot. I haven't been to Rome but want to see it. But, luckily, you have time for both, along with a bunch of UK days at the front end. With four weeks, why not both Rome and Budapest?

Look at airfares and schedules to plan the flights. Fly home "open jaw" from either Budapest (likely via Frankfurt) or Rome, rather than backtracking to London.

As others have said you do have time to visit both. You could plan your international flights to be into London and back from Rome. When you're done with UK, then fly from Edinburgh to Budapest for a few days, take the train to Vienna for a few days, then fly to Rome and home from there. If you feel you don't have time for both Budapest and Vienna, then fly directly from Budapest to Rome. I just threw in Vienna because you mentioned it in your follow-up post and it's a fairly short train ride from Budapest (2-1/2 hrs) and the two cities do seem to complement each other. There are inexpensive (when purchased in advance) non-stop flights between these cities in Europe.

I haven't been to Budapest, but you can't go wrong with Rome. There is so much to see. If you like history and art, I would go to Rome.

We enjoy wandering, eating, drinking, shopping. Maybe a few museums. Love historical sites and beautiful churches.

You'll find that just about everywhere in Europe. It sounds like you have about 2 weeks in the UK, then 2 weeks elsewhere?

Budapest combines well with Vienna and Prague for 10-12 days, all by rail. Italy is classic, but I think both the Cinque Terre and the Amalfi Coast will be chock-full of tourists in September, so those aren't the places I'd choose there.

Four weeks is great, so you can do both Rome and Budapest. Now it seems that you want to travel to Britain as well.

I would try to keep the number of transfers to far away cities to a minimum. Barcelona is nice, but do Spain on another trip.

If you do any travel in Britain, you can stay in London and sightsee there, also take day tours to Bath, Stratford on Avon, Cotswolds, Oxford, Blenheim Palace, Canterbury, Cambridge. You can take the train to York or Edinburgh (overnight train).

Another choice is upon leaving London visit Bath, Cotswolds, etc. by renting a car. You will see more of the countryside.

We have a four week driving tour of Britain and Wales and we aren't going everywhere in Britain that we want. Saving Scotland for another trip.

There is a discount carrier Edinburgh to Budapest, non stop. Which is why I am writing this from very near Edinburgh.

"It's not comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and bicycles."

I'm going to steal this line - thanks, Chani!

As well as being clever, it happens to be true for the two cities you mentioned. I agree that with enough time, see both.

There are places that it is great just to be and places that are great to see, and places that are both great to see and to be. For me Prague and Siena are great to be. Amsterdam is better for being than seeing. Paris is a blend as is London. Florence is spectacularly great to see and be. Salzberg and Cesky Krumlov are primarily great to be. Rome is further towards seeing than being but still great to be. Vienna is much better to see than be. I haven't been to Budapest, but I suspect it of being great to be more than great to see.

I like both seeing and being, but they are not the same. Ultimately one must choose.

I would choose Budapest for that simple reason that I have not yet been to Budapest.

Jen, well put.

Of course there is another variation. Some places are great to see, but when the seeing is done remain excellent places to BE, others don't. For me, and its always very personally subjective, Prague and Dubrovnik were excellent to SEE but I had no desire to BE there. Paris was very worth BEING after SEEING. Kiev fell low in the SEEING but very high in the BEEING. Budapest get my high marks for both SEEING and BEEING, but trying to be subjective I guess it ranks higher in the BEEING. Vienna, for me is not particularly high for SEEING and lower in BEEING.

Harold, You're welcome.

And I'm going to adopt Jen's "places to be and places to see."

For me, places to be: Paris, Venice, Jerusalem, Zion (Utah). I'm going back to Budapest this year, if it kills me. Then I'll decide if it's a "be" or "see" place for me. Rome - definitely a "see", I'll be back there next month for the 3rd time, and though as a city, I think it is "meh," I have a to-do list of museums and ancient sites that easily exceeds my 5 days there.

Interesting observations. I have been to Budapest twice and am going to Rome for the first time in February. I wanted to mark this discussion so I can come back after my visit and reread everyone's preferences.

Two questions would go into my decision process:

1. How much time? Rome has much more to see and do. If I have more than three days to spend, I'm going to Rome because I'd run out of sights in Budapest. If I have less than three days, I'd consider Budapest because it's not enough time to see Rome.

2. What time of year? I was in Rome at the end of October/start of November and that was nice. The temperatures were comfortable. Even then you could feel how July would be oppressive - not to mention the crowds. If it's later fall, winter or early spring, I'd go to Rome.

I'd skip Rome in the summer. In the summer, I'd choose Budapest - the temperature and crowds are likely to be much more manageable. I don't think I want to visit Budapest mid-winter. September, all else equal, I'd choose Budapest weather.

Hi,

I don't know Rome, have never been there but I do know Budapest ( a little) since I've spent three day trips over four years there. Given just these two choices on which one you pick in the summer which for me would be going there in the summer, my choice is Budapest. Are you going from one to the other by train?

Given the original question - I vote for Rome. The energy of the city is amazing and, of course, the history is almost beyond comparison but we all have our personal preferences for travel. Over the years and maybe a half a dozen visits we have spent close to a month in Rome and always eager to return. Planning a trip in Oct, 17, and will add a couple more days in Rome. In all of our time in Rome have never seen a pickpocket - lucky I guess. AND - survived every street crossing. More than lucky.

Looking at 4 weeks overall, and for ease of logistics, I would lock in ...
London (4N) and Cotswolds (or Edinburgh) (3N)
fly to
Rome (4N) and Almafi Coast (5N)
fly to
Budapest (4N) and Vienna (3N)

then the choice becomes to add on ...
either, Barcelona (5N)
or, York (2N) and Edinburgh (or Cotswolds) (3N)

So, Sue, what have you decided?

Thanks to all for your wonderful suggestions. Our thoughts about where to go change almost daily, partly because we're also joining friends for part of our trip. We've decided to save Budapest for another trip. Right now it's looking like this:

Arrive London. Then before joining our friends, we will either go to Bath and Cardiff or head in the other direction to Kent County. This is where my husband's ancestors are from and he would like to go there. Head back to London where we then meet up with friends.

London - 2 nights
Cotswolds - day trip from London or 2 nights
York - 3 nights
Edinburgh- 3 nights
Fly to Madrid
Stay in Spain for remainder of trip or head to Rome and fly home from there.

Still a work in progress, but we plan on booking our flights this week.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

There's tons to see in Spain, so I'd stay there for the remainder of the trip. Who wants to deal with another airport? See Rome and other parts of Italy next time.

How lucky we are to have to make these kinds of hard choices ☺ I will tell you that I didn't think I'd find a country I liked more than Italy, until I got to Andalucia! Barcelona's great too, very different in a lot of ways from any other big European cities.

I'd fly into Sevilla and home from Barcelona, skipping Madrid (unless you want to see the world-class art museums).

If art is important to you, you have to see the Sistine Chapel despite the crowds. I've been to most of the major European art museums, including the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, and the Vatican Museum/Sistine is my #1.