I'm planning a trip to Poland during the Easter break and I would like to know whether four days would be enough to see the main attractions in Warsaw and Krakow? Or should I just spend the entire four days in Krakow?
Hope someone can help me out here. Thanks!
stay Krakow only - it's the former polish capital and still a cultural capital. One of the oldest towns and very well preserved.
Well, if you only have four days, then yes, I would reccomend only Krakow as there is tons to do in and around the area and it's truly such a wonderful place, but if you had two more days, I would say to go up to Warsaw. You'll find many people don't suggest it, but I had a wonderful time in Warsaw and found the difference between it and Krakow to be really interesting...Krakow is admittedly more beautiful and cheaper, but Warsaw is just really fascinating to me...wish I could put it into words...the Polish people are fabulous (not to mention all the amber jewelry!) and you'll have a wonderful time.
Hi, i spent 2 days in warsaw and 2 in krakow last summer on an eatern european trip. I would say that u can see the sights of both cities in 4 days no problems - as long as you dont mind some extreme sightseeing. I even managed to fit in auswitsch and the salt mines in Krakow. Though krakow is def the nicer of the 2 cities with more to do and generally prettier, warsaw is worth a look if only as a comparison.
I'd skip warsaw. If you want to visit a second city, try Gdansk, Torun or Wroclaw, Those are much prittier and laidback than Warsaw.
You will not get yourself bored with four days in Krakow. If you're in a hury you can fit all sightseeings in one day. But then you will not have time to speak to the Poles, have a nive Siviec beer on the terrace, learn some Polish (aarrgghh) and dance on the tables of the student bars.
Don't forget: a trip to Auschwitz, as obligatory as it may be, will ruin your day and not will leave you in a contemplating, sad mood. Which is not bad, but you have to leave time in you "schedule" to let it sink in.