With no more than two nights in any city, I had to carefully choose what I wanted to see. This was especially true of the tourist hotspots. Whilst in Naples I had time to visit either Pompeii or Herculaneum, but not both. I asked a few colleagues who had visited both, which was their preference. The general consensus was Herculaneum.
Herculaneum was a smaller, more elite, town than Pompeii. The smaller size makes it easy to see the whole town in about half a day. The level or preservation is also different. Due to its location, Herculaneum was only mildly affected by the first phase of the eruption. While roofs in Pompeii collapsed under the weight of falling debris, only a few centimetres of ash fell on Herculaneum, causing little damage. Nevertheless, the ash prompted most inhabitants to flee. The first pyroclastic surge, flowed down the mountain and through the mostly-evacuated town at 160 km/h. Most of the victims of this surge were found on the beach and in the boathouses. A succession of six flows and surges buried the city's buildings to approximately 20 m, causing little damage in some areas and preserving structures, objects and victims almost intact. However, other areas were damaged significantly, knocking down walls, tearing away columns and other large objects. Unlike Pompeii, the mainly pyroclastic material that covered Herculaneum carbonized and preserved more wooden objects such as roofs, beds, and doors, as well as other organic-based materials such as food and papyrus. Frescos and mosaics are better preserved than Pompeii and some of the colours are stunning.
