Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oslo is a quite boring town, nothing special about it, reminds me of Gothenburg which is at similar size and also quite dull in my opinion. Unlike in Sweden and Denmark (where Copenhagen and Stockholm is the nr. 1 must see), the captial is not the highlight of Norway by any means, Oslo is just an average European small sized city. Visit the west coast instead, or the north, for the real Norway.
Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen are more or less the same size. Oslo are actually bigger in population than Copenhagen, 660.000 for Oslo vs. 590.000 for Copenhagen It's not like we compare Oslo vs. two giant London size cities here.
That is also because Sweden and Denmark have nothing else to offer than their capitals. Denmark is just flat and windy.
And also cause Oslo was not a national capital until 1814 and had very little international importance and it was not until 1905 that Norway became truly independent. Meanwhile, Stockholm and Copenhagen was capitals of 2 mighty kingdoms, European superpowers at the time, they are larger and has a more rich history and preserved old town sections.
Much of Sweden is almost as flat as Denmark, the entire Baltic Coast (and really the Kattegat coast in the west as well) is flat as a pancake just like Denmark but with more trees. If you want any terrain that is out of the ordinary in Sweden you have to hike far into Lapland in north-westernmost Sweden, while in Norway you can get to even far more impressive looking areas with flights, major roads and public transport.
Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen are more or less the same size. Oslo are actually bigger in population than Copenhagen, 660.000 for Oslo vs. 590.000 for Copenhagen It's not like we compare Oslo vs. two giant London size cities here.
Thats only strictly speaking in the size of the municipalities. By that definition, not even Fredriksberg is Copenhagen and Solna is not Stockholm.
And also cause Oslo was not a national capital until 1814 and had very little international importance and it was not until 1905 that Norway became truly independent. Meanwhile, Stockholm and Copenhagen was capitals of 2 mighty kingdoms, European superpowers at the time, they are larger and has a more rich history and preserved old town sections.
Helsinki wasn't the national capital until 1812, but I can assure you there's more to see there than in Oslo.
Sweden has other offerings, but, yeah, Denmark is not really that interesting. Even Copenhagen isn't super-interesting.
Yes, Sweden has Gotland, Abiskio, Liseberg, and so on, but I think they all pales in comparison to Norwegian tourist attractions like Lofoten, Nordkapp, Bergen, Geiranger, Trolltunga, Preikestolen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not like we compare Oslo vs. two giant London size cities here.
