Cruise or land tour in Europe?

[erby2283]

I have been saving for several years to take my first (and possibly only) trip to Europe, primarily Italy. I am completely torn as to whether to see Italy by land tour, or by a RC cruise. Of course I would have less time in ports if I am on the cruise but at the same time, something about not living out of a suitcase for two weeks appeals to me. I also like the idea of having all my meals included on a cruise although I would definitely enjoy some local food while in port!

 

To those that have done both, which one did you prefer? What other pros and cons are there to each that I may be forgetting. I really enjoy cruising but also fear I may walk away thinking I didn't spend enough time in places I wanted to see.

[Tee & Chilli]

Do both. Fly in a few days before the cruise or stay a few days after.

[Tapi]

I think that a cruise is a great and cost effective way to “sample” what Europe has to offer, but as you’ve already realized, you’ll have very limited time at each port. You’ll barely scratch the surface.

 

Europe is a vast continent with so much to see, and my first instinct would be to book a land vacation. My first trip to Europe was a month long land vacation where we saw so much and truly had a chance to immerse ourselves. Yes, we lived off a suitcase and stayed at more hotels than I can recall, from large chain hotels, to bed and breakfasts. We traveled by airplane, train, bus, and local mass transportation. We also got to visit inland countries that we would’ve never seen on a cruise. It was a fantastic experience that I will never regret.

 

You need to make a choice. Do you want to sample various ports of call in a cost effective and simple way, or do you want to truly experience Europe?

 

If you were saying that this would be a first visit to Europe and that you have plans of returning for a land vacation, I would recommend the cruise. But if this will be your only trip across the Atlantic, I would lean more towards a land vacation, or at least a land vacation combined with a cruise. That way you’d get to do both.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Hoopster95]

I have been saving for several years to take my first (and possibly only) trip to Europe, primarily Italy. I am completely torn as to whether to see Italy by land tour, or by a RC cruise. Of course I would have less time in ports if I am on the cruise but at the same time, something about not living out of a suitcase for two weeks appeals to me. I also like the idea of having all my meals included on a cruise although I would definitely enjoy some local food while in port!

 

To those that have done both, which one did you prefer? What other pros and cons are there to each that I may be forgetting. I really enjoy cruising but also fear I may walk away thinking I didn't spend enough time in places I wanted to see.

 

I love cruising and have also traveled in Italy on land (I'm Italian if that matters) so I know the differences of both....

The previous answers are 100% true...

 

If your #1 criteria is to experience Italy, then DO NOT do a cruise.

 

If you wish to see several different cities for only a few hours with time constraints to get back to the ship on time, then by all means do a cruise..... don't expect to see much of Italy.

 

I believe you're from Charlotte... your trip to Italy would look like me, a Canadian, taking a cruise to USA:

• 6 hours in Boston - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced Boston?
  
• 8 hours in New York - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced New York?
  
• 8 hours in DC - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced the Washington area?
  
• 6 hours in Norfolk - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced Norfolk?
  

Do I go home to all my Canadian friends and say 'I know all about the USA because I just "travelled" there?' ... NOT!What about New Orleans, Arizona, LA,San Fran, the Pacific Northwest, Yellowstone, Vegas, etc etc ... I can go on.

In the above "cruise" of the East Coast of USA I would know hardly anything about the US.

 

However, if I spent 4 days in Boston, 4 days in New York, 3-4 days in Philly, another 4-5 days in DC, and then 4-5 days in the Carolinas, maybe I could say I had a great trip learning and immersing myself into the US East Coast, learned a lot from the people and also had an incredible experience!

 

Capiche? :cool:;p

[xpcdoojk]

Hi Erby!!!!

 

I think that a cruise only makes sense if you can do a week then do another week on land. There are so many great bits of Italy, I think you can limit the suit case unpacking for a two week trip to 4 or 5 events. Fly to Venice or Rome and return from the other. Then you can base in a hotel near Florence or other Tuscan towns, then maybe another in Sorrento to visit Amalfi, Capri and Pompei, then if you want to visit northern Italy you could base out of Genoa or Milan and do day trips from there. Trains are a great option, most towns have a station near the center of the city which makes basing day trips out of a small handful of cities quite doable. And in the Sorrento area, ferries are the equal of trains and you can easily visit all of the beautiful spots that are Amalfi.

 

JC

[Zach1213]

So many of the best places in Europe are nowhere near the water...including, in my opinion, many of the best parts of Italy (as well as my absolute favorite European holiday destination, Switzerland). I would never want to do a cruise of Europe unless it were a river cruise...and even then...meh.

 

Stick to the land and then visit the seaside locations that appeal most to you.

[Beachammo]

I love cruising and have also traveled in Italy on land (I'm Italian if that matters) so I know the differences of both....

The previous answers are 100% true...

 

If your #1 criteria is to experience Italy, then DO NOT do a cruise.

 

If you wish to see several different cities for only a few hours with time constraints to get back to the ship on time, then by all means do a cruise..... don't expect to see much of Italy.

 

I believe you're from Charlotte... your trip to Italy would look like me, a Canadian, taking a cruise to USA:

• 6 hours in Boston - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced Boston?
  
• 8 hours in New York - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced New York?
  
• 8 hours in DC - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced the Washington area?
  
• 6 hours in Norfolk - would I be able to say I've seen and experienced Norfolk?
  

Do I go home to all my Canadian friends and say 'I know all about the USA because I just "travelled" there?' ... NOT!What about New Orleans, Arizona, LA,San Fran, the Pacific Northwest, Yellowstone, Vegas, etc etc ... I can go on.

In the above "cruise" of the East Coast of USA I would know hardly anything about the US.

 

However, if I spent 4 days in Boston, 4 days in New York, 3-4 days in Philly, another 4-5 days in DC, and then 4-5 days in the Carolinas, maybe I could say I had a great trip learning and immersing myself into the US East Coast, learned a lot from the people and also had an incredible experience!

 

Capiche? :cool:;p

I live in Virginia Beach.....

 

6 hours in Norfolk is PLENTY of time....lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Crazy planning mom]

I have been saving for several years to take my first (and possibly only) trip to Europe, primarily Italy. I am completely torn as to whether to see Italy by land tour, or by a RC cruise. Of course I would have less time in ports if I am on the cruise but at the same time, something about not living out of a suitcase for two weeks appeals to me. I also like the idea of having all my meals included on a cruise although I would definitely enjoy some local food while in port!

 

To those that have done both, which one did you prefer? What other pros and cons are there to each that I may be forgetting. I really enjoy cruising but also fear I may walk away thinking I didn't spend enough time in places I wanted to see.

I took a cruise out of Civitavecchia but flew to Rome 4 days early and spent time sightseeing and adjusting to the jet lag. I recommend cruising but flying a minimum of 2 days early from the states. I saw Rome, Florence, Pisa, Capri and Pompeii. It was wonderful.

[Crazy planning mom]

Do both. Fly in a few days before the cruise or stay a few days after.

Yes, this is the best way.

[CummingCruiser]

I would definitely go for land tour. We just did 2 weeks in April and loved it.

 

1) The food is great, so you want to eat on land not the ship

2) Some ports are far away the sights, so you will spend a good portion of your time on buses if you cruise

3) Depending on time of year, some places will be crowded and would be worst with a cruise. It was sad seeing so many people from a cruise overtake some of the smaller places like Cinque Terra and Venice all at once.

 

We went with a Tour Company and spend 3 nights in each city (Sorrento, Rome, Florence, Venice), and did day trips as someone above mentioned (so limited the packing/unpacking). The tour covered all the excursions and most of the meals except for lunches when we were on our own. So for us, it was similar to a cruise (not worrying about driving or where to eat), but we were able to see a lot more of Italy and feel more relaxed and not rushed. Part of the experience was just walking the streets and having an aperol spritz or gelato.

 

Either way you will love it!!

[katmu]

I agree with many of the other posters that if you have time to do fly in early and ideally stay post cruise as well a cruise/land combo would be ideal. If it were me, I would look for a cruise that sails out of Rome and into Venice or vice-versa. If you are limited to only 2 weeks, I would opt for a land trip. Italy is pretty easy to do on your own. I'm would limit it to 3 or perhaps 4 places in 2 weeks and no more. Slow down.

 

I will caution you that the more I travel to Europe and Italy in particular, the more I want to visit there. I took my mom for her first trip there last year after we visited Paris in 2015 and she loved Italy even more than Paris so be prepared for that. Enjoy your trip, whatever you decide.

[erby2283]

Wow! Thank you all so much for your thoughtful insight and responses.

 

To clarify a few things I should have mentioned in my original post, the cruise we are looking at starts/ends in Barcelona with an overnight in Venice. Then, my bf (who is of Portuguese decent) wants to at least step foot in Portugal so we planned on flying there post-cruise for a couple days. He is kind of dead set against a land tour bc he wants to see more than just Italy (I know there are land tours that do combine Italy with other countries so maybe I could talk him into one of those). This cruise also visits France, Croatia and Montenegro as well as 4 ports in Italy (Florence, Rome, Naples, Venice) so I thought it was a good compromise. There was a cruise that went to two ports in Italy AND Lisbon but had 5 stops in Spain which wasn't high on my bucket list.

 

I totally get what a lot of you are saying as far as time spent in port. That's my concern too. May have to go visit the Ports of Call section to see what kind of tours are available. If I did a cruise, I would definitely want to do an excursion everywhere we went instead of just trying to wing it (either ship or local touring company). Why do I make these decisions so difficult. lol

[erby2283]

Do both. Fly in a few days before the cruise or stay a few days after.

We plan on doing a few days in Portugal post-cruise.

 

If you were saying that this would be a first visit to Europe and that you have plans of returning for a land vacation, I would recommend the cruise. But if this will be your only trip across the Atlantic, I would lean more towards a land vacation, or at least a land vacation combined with a cruise. That way you’d get to do both.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I think my bf wants to test the waters and "step foot" in as many European countries as he can while still satisfying my desire to see Italy. He keeps saying we can always go back....but it took me a few years to save and not cruising during those years sucks. lol

[alfaeric]

So for fixed amount of time....

Cruise lets you see more places but in a shorter length per,

 

Land lets you see fewer places, but more in depth.

 

Some places you can realistically see in 6-8 hours, others take 4-7 days. You need to determine some of that.

 

For Rome, I'm 100% with people here- even IF you choose a cruise, I would come early or stay late in Rome to really see things. And I'd also really consider what kind of tour I want to do in each port- if it's a once in a lifetime place, then it's worth the small thing- like if you HAVE to see the Leaning Tower, then it's worth the trip there and back. If not, then you can get a really good look at the culture by staying near ports.

 

For major Italian highlights- Florence, Rome, Venice, etc- it's not really fair to see them in an 8 hour excursion. Too many things to really see.

 

(FWIW, we've done both- but mostly have done 2 week land tours in Italy, AND the cruise included 3 days prior and 2 days after in Rome)

[erby2283]

 

I will caution you that the more I travel to Europe and Italy in particular, the more I want to visit there. I took my mom for her first trip there last year after we visited Paris in 2015 and she loved Italy even more than Paris so be prepared for that. Enjoy your trip, whatever you decide.

That's one of the reasons I want to go sooner rather than later. My mom passed away in September and we are Italian and she always wanted to go to Italy and never made it there. I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

I would definitely go for land tour. We just did 2 weeks in April and loved it.

 

1) The food is great, so you want to eat on land not the ship

2) Some ports are far away the sights, so you will spend a good portion of your time on buses if you cruise

3) Depending on time of year, some places will be crowded and would be worst with a cruise. It was sad seeing so many people from a cruise overtake some of the smaller places like Cinque Terra and Venice all at once.

 

We went with a Tour Company and spend 3 nights in each city (Sorrento, Rome, Florence, Venice), and did day trips as someone above mentioned (so limited the packing/unpacking). The tour covered all the excursions and most of the meals except for lunches when we were on our own. So for us, it was similar to a cruise (not worrying about driving or where to eat), but we were able to see a lot more of Italy and feel more relaxed and not rushed. Part of the experience was just walking the streets and having an aperol spritz or gelato.

 

Either way you will love it!!

Thank you. I would like the idea of not having to rush back to a ship or being left behind. :*

[Zach1213]

I may be in the minority here, but I would take Portugal over Barcelona or Venice any day. Portugal is one of the absolute best holiday destinations in Europe in my opinion, and is so cheap too. Do more than just step foot in Portugal...it's a lovely country.

[erby2283]

Hi Erby!!!!

 

I think that a cruise only makes sense if you can do a week then do another week on land. There are so many great bits of Italy, I think you can limit the suit case unpacking for a two week trip to 4 or 5 events. Fly to Venice or Rome and return from the other. Then you can base in a hotel near Florence or other Tuscan towns, then maybe another in Sorrento to visit Amalfi, Capri and Pompei, then if you want to visit northern Italy you could base out of Genoa or Milan and do day trips from there. Trains are a great option, most towns have a station near the center of the city which makes basing day trips out of a small handful of cities quite doable. And in the Sorrento area, ferries are the equal of trains and you can easily visit all of the beautiful spots that are Amalfi.

 

JC

Sounds like you should plan my trip for me! All wonderful ideas - thank you!

 

I love cruising and have also traveled in Italy on land (I'm Italian if that matters) so I know the differences of both....

The previous answers are 100% true...

 

 

However, if I spent 4 days in Boston, 4 days in New York, 3-4 days in Philly, another 4-5 days in DC, and then 4-5 days in the Carolinas, maybe I could say I had a great trip learning and immersing myself into the US East Coast, learned a lot from the people and also had an incredible experience!

 

Capiche? :cool:;p

Capiche! My bf has this idea that this is our "first" trip to Europe so he wants to step foot in as many countries as he can. I guess for him it's quantity over quality.

[erby2283]

I may be in the minority here, but I would take Portugal over Barcelona or Venice any day. Portugal is one of the absolute best holiday destinations in Europe in my opinion, and is so cheap too. Do more than just step foot in Portugal...it's a lovely country.

We hope to be able to spend 2-3 days. But that would leave me just being able to fly in one day before the cruise bc the cruise is 12 days and work might kill me. I'm hoping my TA can find a few tours we could take in Portugal to make the most of it.

[Zach1213]

We hope to be able to spend 2-3 days. But that would leave me just being able to fly in one day before the cruise bc the cruise is 12 days and work might kill me. I'm hoping my TA can find a few tours we could take in Portugal to make the most of it.

If I may make a recommendation, try to base yourself in Porto and do a couple of things from there. Lisbon is fine, but Porto and the surrounding area are even better. Again, just my opinion.

[erby2283]

So for fixed amount of time....

Cruise lets you see more places but in a shorter length per,

 

Land lets you see fewer places, but more in depth.

 

Thank you! Guess I need to think of my past cruises and whether I was satisfied spending a day trip there. I think my answer would be that if I actually did a great tour on those islands (like I did in St. Lucia) I'd feel like I got a great idea of what the city felt like. Maybe this is a good way to feel out what we like and plan a land tour for next time?

 

I personally want to take a gondola ride in Venice. I know it sounds silly but I've always wanted to do it. Then I have friends who say Venice is awful and prefer other cities in Italy. To each his own I suppose.

[erby2283]

If I may make a recommendation, try to base yourself in Porto and do a couple of things from there. Lisbon is fine, but Porto and the surrounding area are even better. Again, just my opinion.

 

I will write it down!

[xpcdoojk]

Erby, I would definitely go to Porto, not a big fan of Lisbon, but it is nice too. Unless there is a true family connection to a specific place in Portugal and if there is your BF should seek out family connections those things magnify as time goes on and can lead to regrets. I don’t think you should be afraid of stops in Spain. Spain is nice too, and there are lots of cool places to visit in Spain such as the Alhambra Palace in Grenada and Sacred familia cathedral in Barcelona or even the Santiago de Compostela in Galicia. Then spend a few nights in Rome at the end of the trip. So 4 days in Portugal 7 day cruise, 3 nights in Rome.

 

Or something similar to that would be a great trip. I just wouldn’t do only a cruise, if you truly don’t think you will ever go back to Europe.

 

I am sorry to hear about your mother. I don’t think I was aware of that.

 

your friend

 

JC

[Tommy3putts]

Here is my .02. I agree with the recommendations to try to do both. Cruising in a great way to check out new spots to do a return extended visit in the future. But cruising doesn’t have to be the only means of sightseeing.

 

Up until 2014 we did land based vacations of Europe. A series of Two week vacations of seeing mostly Italy. The trains in Europe are awesome. So we’d spend 2-3 days in a spot and then move on. The bad part is the never ending “bag drag” and “packing and unpacking.” Venice is the worst. I quickly learned and became a fan on the “one bag” travel concept. Wheeled luggage is not your friend.

 

Conversely, cruising is a much more inviting “unpack once” and let the ship take you to a new spot each day. The con here is a limited time in ports. That’s why we like the overnight itineraries when we can.

 

If you have the time I’d recommend doing a hybrid. For example in 2014, we did an 11 Night Med Cruise out of Rome. We spend two nights pre-cruise and one night post cruise in Rome.

 

This fall we are doing the Symphony Transatlantic from Barcelona. We are going over to Barcelona three days before we sail so we can really enjoy the city and surrounding areas before our cruise.

 

Bon Voyage!

 

Tom

[erby2283]

Erby, I would definitely go to Porto, not a big fan of Lisbon, but it is nice too. Unless there is a true family connection to a specific place in Portugal and if there is your BF should seek out family connections those things magnify as time goes on and can lead to regrets. I don’t think you should be afraid of stops in Spain. Spain is nice too, and there are lots of cool places to visit in Spain such as the Alhambra Palace in Grenada and Sacred familia cathedral in Barcelona or even the Santiago de Compostela in Galicia. Then spend a few nights in Rome at the end of the trip. So 4 days in Portugal 7 day cruise, 3 nights in Rome.

 

Or something similar to that would be a great trip. I just wouldn’t do only a cruise, if you truly don’t think you will ever go back to Europe.

 

I am sorry to hear about your mother. I don’t think I was aware of that.

 

 

your friend

 

JC

 

Thanks JC. I miss her every day. You've given me some options to think about. Next question....I assume when I book airfare (through my TA), I should be looking at all one-way flights?

[katmu]

Thank you! Guess I need to think of my past cruises and whether I was satisfied spending a day trip there. I think my answer would be that if I actually did a great tour on those islands (like I did in St. Lucia) I'd feel like I got a great idea of what the city felt like. Maybe this is a good way to feel out what we like and plan a land tour for next time?

 

I personally want to take a gondola ride in Venice. I know it sounds silly but I've always wanted to do it. Then I have friends who say Venice is awful and prefer other cities in Italy. To each his own I suppose.

 

 

If you are going to visit Venice, my number one tip is to try to visit during shoulder season or low season (winter) other than Carnival. Venice during the peak season is so crowded these days, and I think that is a big part of why many people don't like it.

 

I do think it it something that everyone should see once though. There are so many great places to see in Italy other than just Rome, Venice and Florence. Although, I agree that Spain and Portugal are wonderful too. But since your family is Italian maybe Italy would have special meaning for you?