Si Satchanalai Or Sukhothai?

[FondueUSA]

Is it worth seeing both Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai? Or should I just see one?

Thanks

[lovelomsak]

That is a hard question to answer. It depends on how much you enjoy looking at old ruins.

I personally have been to sukhothai 3 times and was bored in 10 minutes every time. Also I have never been to Si Satchanalai so cannot advise.

If I was like you on 10 day holiday I would stop in Lopburi for an hour see the ruins there and call it quits for ruins, they really are quite boring. Wats are much more interesting.

[farangcnx]

When you like ruins,see them both and beware that there is an entrance fee for foreigners that 10 times higher than what Thais pay.

[jackr]

Si Satchanalai is much less touristy and more atmospheric.

[vont]

FondueUSA

Did you not mention in your original post that you want to see Thai cultures among several other venues?

I would boldly venture to say that 95%+ of Thaivisa members posting interesting posts after posts here have had their wonderful life styles and experiences within the confinement of between Bangkok and ChienMai cosmopolitan areas where westernized food, cultures and experiences abound. If that is what you desire, it will be a great experience for you too, for sure.

And I would say, less than 5% of the remaining Farangs in Thailand are fortunate enough to have traveled and experienced living and expanded life style as such.... from ChiengMai down to the very southern part of Thailand, such as, BayTong, SaDaow and HatYai where cultural exchanges and interactions between Thais and Malays are abundant and captivating. The Southern provinces represent Thai-life styles similar to those old life-style in Bangkok of some 40 years back. In these mentioned cities, it is pretty safe to visit. And if you like to see Thailand and its by gone year historical representations, you should spend a day or two in the Southern region as well, in order to make your visit to Thailand more complete and rewarding.

Now, it is entirely up to your good self, what kind of Thailand do you wish to experience, the more advanced Thailand (Bangkok, ChiengMai) or mystical Thailand of some 40 years back in Hatyai and other Southern cities?

Regardless, Thailand welcomes your visit. PM me if you like.

Edited July 31, 2010 by vont

[Whale]

I would do both. Sukhothai is more impressive in terms of size of the site (including the hill sites) but Satchanlai has a nicer more relaxed feeling about it and the closeness of the wall gives it a completely different feel.

If you are going with a tour (?) def do both.

[jdean]

I, too, like both of them but if I had to choose only one it would be Si Satchanlai. Somehow sitting along side a river makes it more alluring.

[zzaa09]

Si Satchanalai is much less touristy and more atmospheric.

Indeed it is. And many aren't aware that Sri Satch spreads out throughout a broad area - other hidden temple sits, ancient kiln sites, 2 fantastic little museums, etc. It's also much older than Muang Khow-Sukhothai. One surely needs to hit the expected old city, as well. 3 days. One day to take in Muang Khow and one full day to visit what Sri Satch has to offer. Best to go around the central market areas in Sukhothai and strike up a bargain deal with a taxi or tuk-tuk for the day......

[Kwasaki]

Do both Sukhothai was where King Ramkamhaeng brought all the people of Siam as it was then called, together stopping the warring amonsgt the tribes and the first Capitol of Siam allegedly.

[bramds]

When you like ruins,see them both and beware that there is an entrance fee for foreigners that 10 times higher than what Thais pay.

You make it sound like visiting historical sites is too expensive for foreigners.

Last time in Lopburi my girlfriend paid 10 baht and I paid 50 baht.

Yes, I paid 5 times more, but still, it is a lot less than what you pay anywhere else in the world to visit something historical.

[walker11]

I agree with Jdean and jackr. Si Satchanalai is a better place to visit than Sukhothai. If you have spare time, then you may visit Sukhothai.

[vont]

I agree with Jdean and jackr. Si Satchanalai is a better place to visit than Sukhothai. If you have spare time, then you may visit Sukhothai.

Sukhothai was the capital city in Siam. Its historical values alone deserve many repeated visits, for many more matured farangs--I suspect.

Whereas Si Satchanalai?

where the heck is this remotest TUM-BON ? ! LOL

That will show you how much I know about Thailand !

That is just my humble opinion.

[zzaa09]

I agree with Jdean and jackr. Si Satchanalai is a better place to visit than Sukhothai. If you have spare time, then you may visit Sukhothai.

Sukhothai was the capital city in Siam. Its historical values alone deserve many repeated visits, for many more matured farangs--I suspect.

Whereas Si Satchanalai?

where the heck is this remotest TUM-BON ? ! LOL

That will show you how much I know about Thailand !

That is just my humble opinion.

Though Sri Satchanalai doesn't receive the kudos and praise that it should deserve, there wouldn't have been a Sukhothai empire without the lesser known civilisation. As to your expected knowledge and presumptions of a Old Sukhothai Empire and Siam, remember - this fuzzy Siam that supposedly grew out of Sukhothai {the engineered textbook indoctrination} was miniscule in comparison to older and much more established 'empires' in Phitsanuloke and Nakon Sawan, among others, who considered themselves Tai and could easily claim an older Siamese ancestry. Should be not left out is Lanna, whom Sukhothai owes a great debt to her. There are a number of circles that generally don't buy the well-established story and myth of the first Siamese/Tai Empire as the definitive and standard. It's just been repeated to us all to often, whereas now it has become truth.

[vont]

Enjoy the historical settings of Si Satchanalai.

Have visited both places but just could not remember the name then.

[vont]

Enjoy the historical settings of Si Satchanalai.

Have visited both places but just could not remember the name then.

Did not mean to be disrespectful in any shape or form.

[healthcaretaker]

FondueUSA,

I have been to both places thoroughly during my first visit but I return to Suk 2 times after that but not again to SS. Suk is like a smaller scale of Angkor Wat and much more to see than Ayutthya but SS is just a few but large temples seperated in a large area compared to Suk which is easily 3 to 4 times more temples and you can also visit the New Town and a few new temples between the way from New Town to Old Town. Your question is whether it's worth visiting both and not which to choose so I presume you will definitely visit Sukhotai but whether or not you should visit SS. I will say if you have only 1 day, spend it all in Suk, if 2, it's worth spending 1 day each but sleep in Suk. If you have 3 days, definitely worth giving a day to SS if you like temple ruins. You will definitely like 1 or 2 temples in SS although Suk is the definite better among the 2 places.

If this could give you a better idea, I will rate:

Angkor Wat 20

Sukhothai 5

Ayutthaya 3

SiSat 2

I dont understand why some people could give you such unappropriates replies. Refer to any guide books and you can easily find many more attractions in Suk against SS

I envy someone who mentioned visiting Suk 3 times but got bored in 10 minutes each time. How I wish I could afford to revisit a place that I got bored in 10 mins :-)

Although we pay 10 times more than a Thai, I think it is still cheap and worth to visit if you like the place. Let's not forget that these Thai places belong to their people, so we should not complain if they are charge cheaper entrance fees.

I have paid the same entrance fee as a local to some European attractions that I felt is expensive and not worth a second visit. I will pay again to some Thai attractions.

[merlin1]

I went to both and definitely preferred Si Satchanalai. Some people like Sukhothai for its grandiosity and manicured gardens, others (like me) like the natural, overgrown feel of SS. I felt like I was early European explorer "discovering" some of these ancient ruins for the first time. You don't get that among the swarms of tourists at Sukhothai.

And at SS you can still get basic stuff like bike rentals and brochures in SS.

I will return to SS at some point but I would probably not go back to Sukhothai. FWIW, I am a big fan of Ayutthaya and go back there every time I'm in Thailand.

[andrew55]

Think you've been given the good oil. Isn't TV a great resource?

Sukhothai more restored and has vastly more tourist infra-structure. Also has many unrestored areas. Si Satch is great if you've time to explore. You can almost feel that you're discovering.

Assuming that you have time constraints I'd recommend Sukhothai. Take a guide and you'll see so much more. Don't feel upset by the dual tourist/ Thai pricing. An unsavoury practice to expats especially, but why not?(plenty of passionate threads on this already) They need our money. If I don't think the tourist price is value I don't enter. Shame on those who abuse the NP staff. They're doing there job. Park entries still won't break the bank.

Love to hear how you go.

[jackr]

I dont understand why some people could give you such unappropriates replies. Refer to any guide books and you can easily find many more attractions in Suk against SS

merlin1 nailed it.

For many, it's not about how many attractions or what a place represents, it's the atmosphere and mysticism... and with this, Si Sachanalai is streets ahead. Sukothai is certainly appealing, yet is all a bit manicured/contrived and very touristy. If those things don't bother you and you're there for the history/architecture, then Suk is streets ahead. Sunsets over the chedis are impressive.

Sukothai

Si Sachanalai

In short, do both. If you're in the region and just did Si Sachanalai, that wouldn't really make sense. When I go back, I know which one I'll be giving a miss though.

[jackr]

If this could give you a better idea, I will rate:

Angkor Wat 20

Sukhothai 5

Ayutthaya 3

SiSat 2

How about slipping Old Bagan (15) and Anuradhapura (10) in there to fatten it up a bit.

[merlin1]

I dont understand why some people could give you such unappropriates replies. Refer to any guide books and you can easily find many more attractions in Suk against SS

merlin1 nailed it.

For many, it's not about how many attractions or what a place represents, it's the atmosphere and mysticism... and with this, Si Sachanalai is streets ahead. Sukothai is certainly appealing, yet is all a bit manicured/contrived and very touristy. If those things don't bother you and you're there for the history/architecture, then Suk is streets ahead. Sunsets over the chedis are impressive.

Sukothai

Si Sachanalai

In short, do both. If you're in the region and just did Si Sachanalai, that wouldn't really make sense. When I go back, I know which one I'll be giving a miss though.

Great pics jackr! Worth two thousand words for sure. It is about the atmosphere. And to what extent you feel the need to escape the crowds. I love Thai people, but the constant crush and noise gets to be too much sometimes, and finding these quiet places to escape to is so fantastic. Sukhothai offers some of that sanctuary from the hustle and bustle, but SS is on a whole other level. It's like heaven.

[healthcaretaker]

If this could give you a better idea, I will rate:

Angkor Wat 20

Sukhothai 5

Ayutthaya 3

SiSat 2

How about slipping Old Bagan (15) and Anuradhapura (10) in there to fatten it up a bit.

Thank you, I have not been those places yet. If you agree to my ratings and give those 2 places 15 and 10, I must go soon !!

[kelboy]

Do both Sukhothai was where King Ramkamhaeng brought all the people of Siam as it was then called, together stopping the warring amonsgt the tribes and the first Capitol of Siam allegedly.

nice one kwasaki kelboy