Why cruise Europe?

[dateacher]

My husband and I have been on numerous Caribbean cruises and a cruise to Alaska. We have also been to Europe a few times but Europe was totally a land tour, self-directed.

 

Every once and a while I look at European cruises because I like to cruise and the idea of not changing hotels is appealing. However, the idea of a limited number of hours in a city stops all thoughts of the cruise. I know many people say it's just to get a taste of the cities, you can always go back for a longer trip. Unfortunately, I am at an age (over 60) where there are still too many places to see and I don't know how many I am going to be able to double back on.

 

So can anyone help change my mind? :)

[leaveitallbehind]

I think the same rationale that applies to the decision to cruise the Caribbean and Alaska would apply to cruising Europe. Same concept, just different geography.

[Got2Cruise]

The idea is to piggyback your European cruise with a land vacation at both ends to get best of both worlds. You see a lot but spend a couple of days extra in the places you want to explore deeper. Or, you can do the Adriatic Sea, explore the Greek Islands and ports in Croatia, Montenegro etc

[champagne123]

The idea is to piggyback your European cruise with a land vacation at both ends to get best of both worlds. You see a lot but spend a couple of days extra in the places you want to explore deeper. Or, you can do the Adriatic Sea, explore the Greek Islands and ports in Croatia, Montenegro etc

Great point...PLUS....you only pay the very costly airfare once, not twice. :cool:

[Nic6318]

Hi

 

The main "pros" while cruising is that you only pack and unpack once while visiting many cities/ports. This is true of any cruise destination. Very often a lower cost for travel is also the case, considering there is a packaged meal, hotel, and transportation cost.

 

As you point out the main "con" is that the itinerary is planned out for you and you typically don't get to visit any one place for long. For some even this is not considered a "con" when faced with the alternative.

[Kartgv]

If you think about it that way, why cruise anywhere? With the exception of a small percentage of itineraries that do overnights in a port or 2, they all offer only a partial day in a port. Europe is no different than Australia/New Zealand, Pacific Coastal/Alaska, Caribbean, New England, etc.

 

For us, enjoyment of the ocean and the ship-board amenities & attractions, NO UNPACKING every night, minimal airplane/car rental hassles, and the knowledge that every detail will be handled by someone else once we get onboard makes cruising the most relaxing way to travel. Waking up in a different port almost every day is icing on the cake.

[John Bull]

I think the same rationale that applies to the decision to cruise the Caribbean and Alaska would apply to cruising Europe. Same concept, just different geography.

 

I agree with leaveitall most of the time, but on this one I'm going to respectfully disagree.

 

It's different geography that dictates the rationale of cruise-based or land-based.

 

The Caribbean is mainly islands, most of them only worthy of a day to explore. So a hotel-based Caribbean island vacation is fine if you're a beach-lover, but if you're an explorer the best that most can offer is a couple of days-worth. We've island-hopped by air, but by cruise ship is so much better and easier.

And Alaska, altho I've never been there, I believe is for cruising the scenery.

So cruising makes a lot of sense for both.

 

But most of Europe has far more to offer than a rushed port-of-call day or even a lazy river cruise.

So altho' we've done Med cruises to places like Barcelona, Rome, Venice & such, those places are best visited on a road or rail trip, giving those cities (and the towns, scenery, sights and peoples inland) the time they deserve.

 

But there are exceptions..............

The Norwegian fjords are Europe's equivalent to an Alaskan cruise. You cruise for the scenery, and because the coastline is so indented.

The Baltic is so easy to visit by cruise ship. But because the countries & ports visited are around the rim of a big sea, exploring by road or rail or ferry is slow and complicated, and by using flights expensive and by all of those methods you'll be living out of a suitcase.

The Canary Islands are a cheap and simple cruise along the lines of the Caribbean, but closer and more convenient for Europeans.

And there are a couple of Med itineraries that are perhaps best by cruise ship - the Holy Land and the Greek islands for instance.

 

So the geography dictates what's the best way of visiting, along with personal interests and preferences and the availability of time & depth of pocket.

 

And an example of that is the number of wise recommendations on Cruise Critic to spend some days at your Mediterranean embarkation port, and perhaps choose a one-way cruise so that you can also spend time at your disembarkation port.

 

Just MHO, as always.

 

JB :)

[Keith1010]

The thing about Europe is you can sail many different itineraries as there is so much to see.

 

If you only have a couple of weeks at a time I prefer cruising because we can cover so much more ground then on a land vacation.

 

At 62 you still have the potential to have many years of cruising and the potential to return to places you found interesting.

 

As to the Caribbean there is no comparison in my mind between the two.

 

Keith

[leaveitallbehind]

I agree with leaveitall most of the time, but on this one I'm going to respectfully disagree.

 

It's different geography that dictates the rationale of cruise-based or land-based.

 

The Caribbean is mainly islands, most of them only worthy of a day to explore. So a hotel-based Caribbean island vacation is fine if you're a beach-lover, but if you're an explorer the best that most can offer is a couple of days-worth. We've island-hopped by air, but by cruise ship is so much better and easier.

And Alaska, altho I've never been there, I believe is for cruising the scenery.

So cruising makes a lot of sense for both.

 

But most of Europe has far more to offer than a rushed port-of-call day or even a lazy river cruise.

So altho' we've done Med cruises to places like Barcelona, Rome, Venice & such, those places are best visited on a road or rail trip, giving those cities (and the towns, scenery, sights and peoples inland) the time they deserve.

 

But there are exceptions..............

The Norwegian fjords are Europe's equivalent to an Alaskan cruise. You cruise for the scenery, and because the coastline is so indented.

The Baltic is so easy to visit by cruise ship. But because the countries & ports visited are around the rim of a big sea, exploring by road or rail or ferry is slow and complicated, and by using flights expensive and by all of those methods you'll be living out of a suitcase.

The Canary Islands are a cheap and simple cruise along the lines of the Caribbean, but closer and more convenient for Europeans.

And there are a couple of Med itineraries that are perhaps best by cruise ship - the Holy Land and the Greek islands for instance.

 

So the geography dictates what's the best way of visiting, along with personal interests and preferences and the availability of time & depth of pocket.

 

And an example of that is the number of wise recommendations on Cruise Critic to spend some days at your Mediterranean embarkation port, and perhaps choose a one-way cruise so that you can also spend time at your disembarkation port.

 

Just MHO, as always.

 

JB :)

 

Opinion and rationale accepted! :) And agree with you and others regarding days added pre or post cruise. Guess I was just "bottom lining" the cruise motives. But yours and other responses are correctly insightful in recognizing the differences the geography offers.

 

This forum always provides broad opinions to consider and good information from which to learn.

Edited September 3, 2017 by leaveitallbehind

[dsrdsrdsr]

However, the idea of a limited number of hours in a city stops all thoughts of the cruise.

 

...

 

So can anyone help change my mind? :)

Just because you can't spend a week somewhere is no reason (in my mind) not to spend a day there. OK, so your fortnight cruise may include only one day in each of (say) Santiago di Compostella, Barcelona, Alicante, Gibraltar, Monaco, Rome, Sardinia, Pompeii, and Taormina (that's pretty much the itinerary I once went on). But you presumably don't have the option of stopping for a week at each one, and three days at (say) five sites counts as maximum two touring days because of the hassle of travelling between, getting to hotels, unpacking etc. So a week in Rome and a week in Naples? You've missed some pretty good sites.

[dateacher]

Some really good points to think about. I do have to agree with John Bull that the Caribbean is different. We do that in the winter, just to get some warm weather. While it's nice to visit an island that we like, we are happy with just being in warm weather, on or off the ship.

[navybankerteacher]

Just because you can't spend a week somewhere is no reason (in my mind) not to spend a day there. OK, so your fortnight cruise may include only one day in each of (say) Santiago di Compostella, Barcelona, Alicante, Gibraltar, Monaco, Rome, Sardinia, Pompeii, and Taormina (that's pretty much the itinerary I once went on). But you presumably don't have the option of stopping for a week at each one, and three days at (say) five sites counts as maximum two touring days because of the hassle of travelling between, getting to hotels, unpacking etc. So a week in Rome and a week in Naples? You've missed some pretty good sites.

 

Perhaps it is better to miss a "drive by" in Santiago di Compostella, Monaco, Pompeii, and Gibraltar if you get a chance to really see something of Rome, Athens and Venice.

 

Rome was not built in a day - and it surely cannot be seen in a day.

[Roz]

Are you talking about European ocean cruises or river cruises? Having done a traditional European land tour where you schlep your suitcase on and off a bus and in and out of hotels, I highly recommend a European river cruise. Best of both worlds. I took one in 2015 and am leaving on another one in 3 weeks. Most of the time you dock right in the heart of the city or town you're visiting, which maximizes your touring time, but you have the ease of unpacking and re-packing one time.

 

Roz

[CanadaDeb]

My husband and I have been on numerous Caribbean cruises and a cruise to Alaska. We have also been to Europe a few times but Europe was totally a land tour, self-directed.

 

Every once and a while I look at European cruises because I like to cruise and the idea of not changing hotels is appealing. However, the idea of a limited number of hours in a city stops all thoughts of the cruise. I know many people say it's just to get a taste of the cities, you can always go back for a longer trip. Unfortunately, I am at an age (over 60) where there are still too many places to see and I don't know how many I am going to be able to double back on.

 

So can anyone help change my mind? :)

 

I am 45 but because of illness, I get tired very easily and my travelling days are numbered. A European cruise is the perfect answer for me because, like you said, it gives you a taste of a city. I think it's better to sample a place than not see anything at all. So, in doing a cruise, you sample the city and not waste an entire land based trip on a place you haven't seen before and might not like so much.

[firecrewcapt]

We always add a few days onto our trip either at the end or beginning depending which city we want to explore more. Last TA, April this year, we ended in Hamburg and took the ICE train to Berlin and stayed a week on our own, love Berlin and Germany. Our next TA ends in Copenhagen, April '18, but flying home directly because we're flying back to Copenhagen in Sept. '18 for the TA back to the US, so we'll be in Copenhagen prior to the cruise.

[iancal]

We now do the opposite. Rather than add a land trip at either end of a cruise we sometimes add a cruise to a land trip. Often a last minute cruise, either in the middle or at the end depending on where we happen to be travelling.

[Cruise Junky]

I've done 4 med cruises and enjoyed them immensely but we've always followed up the year after with a land trip to places we wanted to go back to and spend some time. I can't honestly see doing another med trip now. We've become very comfortable doing our own thing and really getting to know a place. Renting a villa is crazy cheap compared to a cruise. I would however cruise somewhere like Norway or the Baltics.

 

We spent a week on Crete in May and the difference between having to be back on a ship vs heading to the local taverna to enjoy the local dishes and hospitality made all the difference to us. So I totally dont blame you for questioning cruising the med.

[dateacher]

I will check into the River cruises however, we really don't mind moving around. We did Spain in 15 days and stayed in 4 different places. It wasn't a problem at all.

[geoherb]

We got back from our first cruise in Europe last week. It was a 12-day British isles cruise on a Princess ship. The primary ports were three in Ireland (Cork, Dublin, and Belfast) and three in Scotland (Glasgow, Inverness, and Edinburgh).* We also stopped in Guernsey and LeHavre. The stop in Dublin was an overnight with an evening departure on the second day, so we had two days to tour there. We had a great time. It was nice to unpack once on the ship and not have to worry about the cost of most meals. We saw in our short time before the cruise how quickly they could add up.

 

This cruise gave us a taste of Ireland and Scotland. We also flew in four days early and spent three of them in London and one in Southampton. I wish we had flown in even earlier or extended our vacation some.

 

Check out the itinerary carefully to see what your times in each port. You don't want to have a short port stay in the place you want to see the most. In our case, only our stop in Guernsey was under 8 hours.

 

Until I retired earlier this year, we could not have fit in a 17-day vacation. I'd like to go back--take a river cruise, travel around the British isles on a land tour, take a Med cruise, etc.

 

*I listed the major city served by each port stop, which is sometimes not the actual place we docked.

Edited September 4, 2017 by geoherb

[Loving My Life]

Sure, with a med cruise, you only get a day or two in each port, but in one 12 night Med cruise with 8 days land pre and post cruise, we saw:

 

- the Eiffel Tower

- the Louvre and D'Orsay museums

- Notre Dame

- Sagrada Familia

- Montserrat

- Park Gruel

- Las Ramblas

- Coliseum

- Vatican and Sistine Chapel

- Amalfi coast

- Pompeii

- Cinque Terre

- Pisa

- Acropolis

- Ephesus

- Blue Mosque

- Grand Bazaar

- windmills and shops in Mykonos

- St. Mark's cathedral and square

- Grand Canal

- Islands of Burano and Murano

 

We tend to do more land based vacations than cruises, but sometimes it's hard to beat one flight but multiple countries and dozens of historic/tourist sites. 🛳 🗼 🏟 🌋 🏰 🏛 🕌

[sanger727]

While I agree that you can see much more of Europe by land; a cruise is still good for island hopping or getting to places you wouldn't have made it to otherwise. We did a med cruise where we went to several Italian/Greek islands. But it also hit turkey which we wouldn't have gone to otherwise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SteveH2508]

I will check into the River cruises however, we really don't mind moving around. We did Spain in 15 days and stayed in 4 different places. It wasn't a problem at all.

 

We did our first river cruise in April (Rhine and Danube). It is a very different experience to an ocean cruise. Many stops (several only half a day); no sea days; not much entertainment on board (apart from eating and drinking). Lots of variety in port stops but not much depth (though we were 'castled and churched out' by the end - our catch phrase became NAFC!)

[dsrdsrdsr]

Perhaps it is better to miss a "drive by" in Santiago di Compostella, Monaco, Pompeii, and Gibraltar if you get a chance to really see something of Rome, Athens and Venice.

 

Rome was not built in a day - and it surely cannot be seen in a day.

Not for me. I'd prefer a day in each, rather than 2 days in Rome and none in Santiago di Compostella. Each to his (or her) own.

 

But how many days to see Rome? You can't see it all in a week. Or two. Or six. There's a lot of Rome.

[navybankerteacher]

Not for me. I'd prefer a day in each, rather than 2 days in Rome and none in Santiago di Compostella. Each to his (or her) own.

 

But how many days to see Rome? You can't see it all in a week. Or two. Or six. There's a lot of Rome.

 

The problem with port calls is that you do not get "a day in each". If your ship pulls into Civita Vecchia at 8:00 AM, you will be lucky to get to Rome much before 10:00 AM -- which you will want to leave not much after 2:00 PM if you had a 4:00 PM sailaway.

 

One day port calls work very well in the Caribbean, but the Mediterranean ports are very different: ideally a series of overnights - allowing longer stays in fewer ports for a given length cruise.

[lamchops]

I'm still a working stiff with 3 weeks vacation. If I did a land vacation I would need a vacation after the vacation. We always top up our cruise with a land portion because of the cost of flying to Europe. The land part is usually front loaded. I will do land trips when I retire and these cruises have helped me decide on where.