Advantages and Disadvantages of cruising Europe vs. doing a tour through Europe

[Budget Queen]

However I would be interested in learning the experiences of others regarding the traditional European capital cities, such as Rome, London, and Paris, to see if it is fulfilling enough.

 

In my opinion and experience, none of these are even remotely good options from a cruiseship. They work well, in ADDITON to a cruiseship, adding many more extra days.

 

I am just back from a TransAtlantic, that ended in Harwich, I adding another week in EACH of London and Paris. Last year, I added an extra week in Rome. In November this year, I have an extra 6 days in Spain. I would never consider any other touring option involving a cruise.

[DRWhit]

I went on my first trip to Europe last year, and we saw London and Paris (with a short three day stay in an English castle in the countryside) during a two week trip. Even with that long there were very many things we were not able to get around to seeing.

 

For a first trip to Europe capitals,like London and Paris, I can't imagine a cruise being adequate. I am sure the cruise would be fun, but it would leave you wanting more. Its just a different kind of trip.

[J & G]

I think of a cruise as an appetizer/tapas platter and a land tour as a multi-course meal. If I like one particular appetizer I can order more....but if I don't like it, it's no big deal....I can just move on. If I don't like one course in the meal, I feel like it is wasted and I wish I'd ordered something else. That may make no sense to anyone but me, but that's sort of how I see it.

 

Advantages to a cruise:

-unpack once

-no schlepping luggage around for a week or more

-see lots of cool places, albeit briefly

-eat familiar food

-a place to call home at night

-room is always clean, with good shower and potty

-no need to make multiple hotel/transportation reservations

 

Advantages to land trip:

-more flexibility to stay longer if you want

-some places are not accessible via cruise ship

-more (even if only a little) immersion in the culture

 

We do both and like both for the reasons I mentioned above.

[Linda & John]

I am researching RCI cruises sailing in Europe and I am worried that the hurried pace won't allow for enough actual time to experience the cultural and historical sights of a country, take Italy for example.

 

 

In 2008 we took an expensive 16 day bus trip to Italy and Sicily with a well-known travel company. We stayed in 10 HOTELS, and lunches and some dinners were not covered. If we wanted entertainment, it was extra. The hotel dinners that were included had Tiramisu for dessert every single night. (We laughed about that.) When we went to Venice, our hotel was not even in Venice. When we went to Rome and Florence, our hotels were in a distant surburb.

 

In 2005, we also took a 2 week bus trip all over Ireland with the same company, but we did like that one.

 

Since we discovered cruising, we're happy with the concept of staying in the same room for the entire trip. Plus, the level of service on a cruise ship cannot be found on a bus trip.

[FreshOffTheBoat]

Cruising is good if your happy with just hitting up a few popular sites at each stop, having a nice lunch in port, and learning a little bit about each country you stop in.

[hazeleyez3]

It depends on the cities. I really haven't ever said, "I want to spend a week in Estonia or Copenhagen", which is why I don't mind doing our cruise in September. Same thing applies to the Greek Isles and Norwegian Fyords.

 

Other than that, it has to be land-based. We did Germany last year, and will do Italy next year. (a country I have always wanted to go to) We'll spend a few days in Venice, a few in Rome, and maybe throw in Florence. That way we'll truly be able to enjoy the cities.

[cathep]

Same thing applies to the Greek Isles and Norwegian Fyords.

 

Forgot about the fjords! Would love to do that.

 

When you cruise, you only get coastal exposure. Much of what I like to tour in Europe and Britain is not coastal. With some exceptions, most of the interesting history and culture in Europe is located on major rivers. The river cruising idea mentioned above intrigues me. I haven't done it yet but would be open to it. One of my most memorable experiences was a half a day trip down the Rhine River. The castles are gorgeous and the history of those castles and the river is incredible.

[MrsFixitCT]

We've been on and off the fence as to cruising in Europe, mainly for the reasons others have specified, especially the "additional" travel to get into the cities.

 

One thing we HAVE been considering is a rail tour we found..fly from NY to London, spend 4 days in London, then train to Paris, spend 4 days, and then train to Rome for 4 days and fly home from there...or add another 4 days to Venice.

 

Just another option...

[mjldvlks]

Is cruising a good way to see London, Paris and Rome? I agree with those who say no. These cities are too far from the ports to allow a decent time for touring in those cities. But on the other hand, I have thoroughly enjoyed our two European cruise experiences [Eastern Med on Splendour in 2007 and TA on Independence in 2009] and would love to go back. I also enjoyed the 3 years I lived in Frankfurt [courtesy of the US Army] and wouldn't mind another extended time in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.

 

It is absolutely true that you only have a limited time in port. But on the other hand, if you are doing a multi-city bus tour, your time in each city will not be much greater. When we lived in Europe [and we were very young at the time] we began by taking fully or almost fully escorted tours. As we got braver, our travels changed to the point where we were essentially unescorted. Cruising Europe is not about "getting to know the culture" of any particular place. But even a month in a single place won't get you there either. To really do that, you need to go to a place and spend months or even years there. Even though we made a real effort to experience Europe during our three years in Germany [nothing like taking a Saturday afternoon drive up the Rhine] spending most of our time living and working in an essentially American community, we probably cannot make that claim.

 

The reasons I like cruising Europe are:

 

1. You get to see a part of Europe [the ports and coastlines] that you don't typically see on land tours. [Rick Steves recently did a show on cruising where he found some good things to say about cruising in Europe -- he recommended spending your shore time in the port areas rather than trying to get to Paris and Rome, etc.]

 

2. It is relaxed in that you don't have to pack/unpack at various stops and the transportation is one heck of a lot more comfortable than a bus/train/plane.

 

3. On both of our cruises we saw places we NEVER would have thought to go except for the fact they were on an itinerary we chose for other reasons. Examples are Dubrovnik, the Azores, and Madeira. Some of my best travel memories are from those areas.

 

4. I just enjoy being on a ship at sea.

 

As others have said, in our cruises involving Europe, we have added time on either end of the cruises to spend more time in particular places. On our Eastern Med cruise we added time in Venice. After our TA, we crossed the channel to spend a few days in Normandy.

 

Having lived in Europe and cruised, I heartily recommend European cruising.

[J & G]

We've been on and off the fence as to cruising in Europe, mainly for the reasons others have specified, especially the "additional" travel to get into the cities.

 

One thing we HAVE been considering is a rail tour we found..fly from NY to London, spend 4 days in London, then train to Paris, spend 4 days, and then train to Rome for 4 days and fly home from there...or add another 4 days to Venice.

 

Just another option...

 

That sounds exactly like a trip we are planning....what company is it with? We are thinking we can do it on our own, but maybe not.....

[Shooraq]

I find that cruises in general are a great way to sample the countries you are touring. Then you can decide if you want to spend more time in a location in the future.

 

For instance, we did a 7-day Baltic Crusie on the Vision last year. The trip was amazing, but we felt that we had no need to return to any of the ports for a week or longer anytime soon.

 

Now we just came back from a 10-day cruise to the Mediterranean on the Celebrity Equinox. We decided we never need to go back to Athens, but Rome was wonderful! DH emphasized that we must go back for a week or two in the future.

 

Future plans - British Isles cruise. This will help me choose which country to go back to for longer (most likely Scotland or Ireland).

 

So the cruise is a nice way to sample the countries you may have an interest in going back to, without worrying about hotel stays or meals.

[sailawayjack]

We've been on and off the fence as to cruising in Europe, mainly for the reasons others have specified, especially the "additional" travel to get into the cities.

 

One thing we HAVE been considering is a rail tour we found..fly from NY to London, spend 4 days in London, then train to Paris, spend 4 days, and then train to Rome for 4 days and fly home from there...or add another 4 days to Venice.

 

Just another option...

 

:cool:Sounds like a great trip, but maybe cut London to 3, and definately add Venice. One day in city to see St. Marks and square, and one day ferry ride to Murano and Burono (lace island). Rome can be done in 3. One day colessium and forum, one day in vatican, and one extra spanish steps etc. Go for it:cool: Nice little hotel in Venice, Locanda Art Decco Hotel. Cheap, clean, and nice little continental breakfast in am.

[co2stay]

We are doing 6 ports in 7 days on the Liberty this fall. We also think it is not nearly enough time but it will be just a taste. To augment the trip, we also will use the rail system; couple of days in Bordeaux, Nantes, Paris in France and a couple of days in London. 20 days total and still not nearly enough time and in some ways, a lot of vacation time :D

[LitaArn]

We’ve done both: several European land tours including a 2 week land tour of Italy in 2006, and a 12 night cruise of the Western Mediterranean route in 2010.

 

Since we have not done a cruise with stops in London and Paris, I can only compare doing a 3 day land tour of Rome versus visiting it for 1 day on a cruise stop.

 

Because we were in Rome for 3 days, we saw and experienced more.

 

As for our cruise stop in Rome, we went with a tour company called RomeInLimo, highly rated here in Cruise Critic. Even though we’ve been to Rome before, we still wanted to see it again. The name of the tour was “Rome Highlights” http://www.romeinlimo.com/rome-civitavecchia/highlights.htm The itinerary for a 1 day stop was ideal and our guide was superb! As cruiser twiggers said (post #14), “I do think that you can get a good "flavor" of a place in a day provided that you hire a great guide”. I completely agree!

 

Before our Med cruise, I would have said that I would lean more towards European land tours. Now, I would place our Med cruise up to par with our 2 weeks in Italy, 1 week each in London and Paris, 2.5 weeks in Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Munich and Germany’s Romantic Road. After all, in those unforgettable, wonderful land tours, we didn’t get to visit fabulous Santorini, stunning Cinque Terre (Livorno port), and the amazing ruins of Ephesus and Athens!

 

Best wishes for arriving at a decision that you’ll be completely happy with :)

 

Lita

[tanelicus]

I think a land based stay of a couple days in each place is the ideal situation.

 

Having been to Amsterdam, Rome, Paris, Florence and Venice, I can't imagine trying to fit those cities into a day let alone a couple hours.

 

I think Northern Europe and the Greek Isles are more suited for cruising.

 

I am of the closed minded opinion that a first timer must see the usual suspects, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Venice before anything else.

 

I also agree that the convenience and cheaper cost make cruising a great way to travel.

 

Thanks for the input everybody and I am enjoying reading the posts.

[jstducky]

I think that since you've said you want to experience Italy, then you've kind of answered your own question.

 

As others have said, a cruise does not allow you to really "experience" but rather to "sample' what Europe is like.

 

I have done 2 Mediterranean cruises, 1 Baltic cruise (about to do my 2nd in a couple of months), and 1 British Isles cruise and I have felt that they were all worth what I paid for, including airfare. I was able to see a bunch of cities/countries in a short amount of days. I went to some places that I probably would never have gone to on my own if I didn't take the cruise (such as Kusadasi, Turkey and Dubrovnik, Croatia - to name a few). So, in that sense, a cruise was great. It was perfect way to get a taste of the various towns and make a personal list of places I would have interest in going back to vs. places I have no interest in.

 

However, I have also spent time traveling to Europe on my own without a tour and got to do the things I wanted to do in the time I wanted to do. And that also had it's pluses. You get to experience the things you want to do, go to the places you want to go to. You aren't dictated by the cruise line intinerary and schedule. But, keep in mind, the travel planning, the arrangements, the transportation, the lodging, the food, etc. all becomes a lot more time consuming and difficult.

 

Additionally, I have also done 2 European land cruises to interior parts of Europe (germany, austria, hungary, slovakia, czech republic) that I wouldn't have been able to do on a cruise. I liked doing the land tour because things were arranged for you, plans were made for you, some meals were included, and lodging was arranged. But yet, you still had personal time in each city to do your own thing.

 

So, in the end, it's really all about what you're looking for and what you want to experience.

 

You can also try and combine the two experiences of doing some stuff on your own and also taking a cruise. For instance, on my last Med cruise, the embarkation point was Venice. So, instead of flying into Venice, I flew into Milan (which also happened to be chealer). I booked a hotel in Milan and explored the city. I took a train to Verona to explore the town of Romeo & Juliet. And I did all of this before boarding a training for the journey from Milan to Venice. Surprisingly, when we were on the train to Venice, we met other cruisers who did the same exact thing we did. Again, on my upcoming Baltics cruise, the cruise embarks in Copenhagen. Instead of flying directly into Copenhagen, I'm actually flying into Amsterdam first and exploring Amsterdam on my own. The day of the cruise, I will then fly from Amsterdam to Copenhagen (its only a 1 hour flight). So that's an idea of how you can combine doing some stuff on your own so you get to experience things, plus also combine it with the convenience of a cruise.

 

For me, this is what I see, based on what you are asking:

 

on your own

get to go where you want

get to see what you want

no time constraints

can change your mind and explore things as they come up

get a real opportunity to explore different places

 

but:

if you are doing mutiple cities, you must figure out transportation

must figure out your own meals

must pay for everything a la carte

must figure out your own lodging (the the variety and amenities vary greatly)

cost, distance, and time to travel between multiple cities can be high

 

cruise

get to see a lot of cities in a short amount of time

all transportation to/from cities, lodging, meals are all planned for you

activities on sea days / relax on sea days to take a break

 

but:

you only get to visit each city for 5-10 hours, which may not be enough

you don't get to control your own itinerary

may end up going to places you have no interest in/have already been to

 

 

Also, as someone mentioned previously, not all cities that tourists are intersted in going to are easily accessible from a cruise ship.

 

So, while a Med cruise may say Rome, the port city of Civitavecchia is over an hour by train if you go on your own, or can be up to 2-3 hours by private car/taxi just to go there.

 

Florence/Pisa is not Livorno (port city) and also requires time to travel to the city.

 

Paris is hours from Le Havre or any other French port city.

 

Berlin is hours from Warnemunde or Rostock

 

So, you've got to decide what is most important to you and your family.

[easybay]

We are sailing on an Eastern Mediterranean cruise in 3 weeks (!!!!!). We made the decision for a multiple reasons. The first being that my DH needs a vacation. We wanted something lower stress and prearranged so we didn't have to "think" to much. We chose this cruise based on timing and on price. We've cruised the Caribbean twice and would like to save Alaska to do with our kids. Both DH and myself have been to Europe multiple times so we don't need indepth experiences, and this was an opportunity for us to go to Turkey, Crete and Sicily - they sound like great vacation spots - I just can't ever imagine us agreeing to taking a 10 day vacation in one of those countries, but who knows - after this trip maybe we will!

[Scottish Cruiser]

I must say I have to agree with almost everything that has been written here. We have had 3 European cruises, 2 river cruises and also had self arranged land tours from weeks in cottages in Ireland to a week in an apartment in Vienna, several days in hotels in most major cities from Paris to Vienna and Amsterdam to Prague, travelling by budget airline and train. Much to be said for each. Never done a bus tour - cannot imagine getting up at 6 am and packing and re-packing every day!

 

As for REALLY immersing in the culture, self catered accommodation is by far the best IMHO. However, this summer we are taking our 2 children, their spouses and 4 grandchildren to Scotland (obviously our country of origin), then a Mediterranean cruise. The grandchildren have never been off the North American continent so we want to show them something of Europe, but not, hopefully, overwhelm them. A cruise seemed the ideal way to do so. Will they fully experience Europe? - of course not! We can only hope we whet their appetite and give them a yearning to return when they are of age and meanwhile appreciate that history invloves real places and not fairy tales.

 

Every type of travel has its advantages and everyone has their own reason for liking their favourite mode. You need to find yours, and you can only do that by trying them.

[sail2sea]

Cruises are great for relaxation and natural scenery, but not good for cultural or historical destinations.

 

Most of Europe, Middle East and Asia are rich in history and culture. So you have to pick and choose. In Europe, Greek isles and Norway Fjords are relatively great for cruises.

 

Greek isles are all islands so you would have to either fly or cruise there anyway. And the Fjords are kind of like Alaska, some of them are best seen from a ship.

 

Western Med would be my last choice for a European cruise.

[mek]

Virtually every town has a McD or an equivalent American fast food place. Your DH can tour through Europe or anywhere else in the world and never have to eat anything but Big Macs.

 

DON

 

You're kidding - right? We don't eat Micky D's at home, why would we want to do it in Europe? :eek: And no, they're not on every block in Europe - don't recall ever seeing one along the Amalfi coast, or Santorini, or Ephesus, or.................