My boyfriend and I are flying out of Sydney on 17 March for bangkok. I think we might get a connecting flight to Cambodia (probably Phenom Penh) bcause it will be cheaper. From Phomn Penh we will go to Siam Reap. I plan to take the Mekong Delta tour to Saigon. At the moment I was thinking of dividing our time between Vietnam and Cambodia. However, I am encouraged by many people to check out Laos if I have the time. Would it be worth it? Or save Laos for another adventure?
Any other advice about Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos is appreciated.
Also, after the four weeks in above countries, we are heading to Delhi and perhaps Katmandu for 4 weeks. Advice appreciated there also.
Thanks a lot.
[ Edit: Edited on Feb 6, 2007, at 7:07 PM by Libby82 ]
I think it would probably be better to leave it for another adventure, because just racing through Vietnam from Hanoi-Saigon (or vice versa) takes a minimum of about 2 weeks if you do it overland, but to enjoy it properly and see some areas off that main stretch, you'll need more than just two weeks in Vietnam. Cambodia well a week could do it if you just saw Siem Reap and Phnom Penh with the possibility of going to Sihanoukville which is a cheap beachside place where a bungalow only about 20 metres from the beach front was only $5US a night. So I saw limit it to just Vietnam and Cambodiw this time and then go back on another trip to do Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Laos and maybe Myanmar/Burma in a seperate trip.
For Nepal I can't say anything, but India be prepared to be ripping your hair out as that place is enough to drive sain people to insanity id you stick to places like Delhi, Agra and Mumbai. Delhi is in some ways a very beautiful city, but for the most part is a filthy and horrible place. Agra is only any good for seeing the Taj Mahal and a couple of other tourist sites, I suggest when in Delhi you get the train up to Haridwar and then a bus from Haridwar-Rishikesh. Rishikesh is a nice place to visit where you'll see people bathing in that disgusting water that gives you skin diseases (the Ganges river) but it makes for really top photos. The same sort of thing is in Haridwar, but a lot more things to see, do and a lot more hectic compared to Rishikesh which gets you a little away from the no space where ever you go that is the case in Delhi. I wouldn't spend much time in Delhi, but go to other areas and at that time of year will be starting to get scorching hot. I was there in early June last year, and it reached 50C on some days it was so hot you could boil an egg on the bonnet of a car! Delhi is really not that nice in comparison to some of the other areas within an overnight train or less away.
Have a great trip, but be prepared to have the biggest culture shock you are ever likely to have when you go to India. That place is like nothing you'll experience in SEA no matter what area you go to.
[ Edit: Edited on Feb 6, 2007, at 8:13 PM by aharrold45 ]
Laos should be done in four weeks and not rushed through-save for next time you will enjoy much more.
Nepal is amazing although 4 weeks in Kathmandu maybe a little wasted. You should definitely get out around the valley or over to Pokhara to get the full Himalayan experience. If possible hitting Nepal last would be a nice wind down after the chaos of India. If you want a different but (personally) more amazing and relatively hassle free time hit north India especially Sikkim.
Never rush in Laos
You need 4 Weeks for this country! Or you deside to go around just south or north, so 2 weeks would by curtly enough, in dis case I would go to the 4000 Islands in south Laos, just to hang around at least for one week on Don Det its a paradice on earth! Maybe on the way back to Bangkok.
But I think the Idea to keep Laos for your next trip is probably better!