Europe - by land or sea - which did you prefer?

[marco]

If you really want to "See" Europe, do a land trip. We've done both, several times. On an "Oceanliner" cruise, many cities are a good distance from the port. If 5-6 hours in Florence or Rome works for you, an ocean liner cruise is fine. You don't get to experience evenings and/or dining on land., either. Yo don't get to experience the country, just several hours in a major city. Shore excursions can increase the cost of an "ocenaliner" cruise A LOT. A very nice alternative is a river cruise. We've done several. It's not an "Ocean liner", only 125-ish passengers, but you have the ambiance of ship travel, you see way more, and you see lots of good sights and scenery along the way. Also, for the most part, all entrances, tours, etc are inlcuded and our experience with guides has been excellent. I don't think I'd recoomend that type of trip with kids, however.

[patrickc]

I would love to do a cruise so don't have to pack & unpack! I did a Contiki through Europe & loved it- but really hated packing/unpacking/schleping my bag in & out of hotels. Never fealt settled. I love the thought of unpacking & settling in for the vacation.

[cdnliving]

Thanks so much for the first hand experiences. I just love reading those!!! I agree about the unpacking/packing....especially with kids...cause it's essentially me doing it all. That's part of the reason for a cruise vs. land. Love to keep reading about peoples experiences with land vs. cruise....keep them coming - always a great read, and great insights!

[pg.]

The packing and unpacking would be minimal on a land trip if you stay in two or three cities.( shich is what most posters have recommended) If you take a tour it would be different, but no one with kids would take a tour unless you LIKE getting the kids up each day at 7, to be at breakfast, to get on the bus, to drive hours each day, where a tour company that stays two whole nights in one place is the rarity not the norm.

 

Frankly , land tours suck, and yes I have done one, years ago, . Ten countries in 21 days, they are exhausting, and I will never do one again, and I can't even remember much about the places we visited as some "visits" were less then 24 hrs!

Rick STeves now has " family tours" but they are expensive and you are still moving every two nights.

 

Seriously, consider going over to "Tripadvisor" forums. They are so helpful.

[sullaRaffaello]

Hello fellow cruisers. I was just wondering if those of you who have travelled to Europe by both land and sea could comment on which they preferred and why. We are a family of four, our kids being 13, & 10, and have waivered on which would be the best way to experience it. Thanks so much for sharing your experiences. Your first hand comments are always most helpful!

 

From the answers I've seen so far to this post, maybe I misinterpreted the OP's question. I've emphasized the preposition in red above, assuming that the OP was referring to the mode of travel to reach the continent of Europe, not the mode of travel once there. If I'm correct in that assumption, the transatlantic crossing by ship is the way to go, if one has the time and money. The airplane will always be there. Who knows what will happen with the transatlantic crossing in the future? If you go by ship, your children will always know in years to come, that they have partaken in the legacy of the great liners of history, to which the so called "cruise" ships of today bear pale resemblence. That having been said, I agree that any major European travel should be overland once there, since any European cruise will merely touch the coast.

[daiB]

From the answers I've seen so far to this post, maybe I misinterpreted the OP's question. I've emphasized the preposition in red above, assuming that the OP was referring to the mode of travel to reach the continent of Europe, not the mode of travel once there. If I'm correct in that assumption, the transatlantic crossing by ship is the way to go, if one has the time and money. The airplane will always be there. Who knows what will happen with the transatlantic crossing in the future? If you go by ship, your children will always know in years to come, that they have partaken in the legacy of the great liners of history, to which the so called "cruise" ships of today bear pale resemblance. That having been said, I agree that any major European travel should be overland once there, since any European cruise will merely touch the coast.

 

 

 

You are quite right, you have misinterpreted, the question in the Title was, Europe - by land or sea - which did you prefer?

 

Now the only land route is via Russia and only if the Baring straight freezes.

 

 

:):)Happy cruising:):)

 

 

:cool:

Dai

 

[pg.]

From the answers I've seen so far to this post, maybe I misinterpreted the OP's question. I've emphasized the preposition in red above, assuming that the OP was referring to the mode of travel to reach the continent of Europe, not the mode of travel once there. If I'm correct in that assumption, the transatlantic crossing by ship is the way to go, if one has the time and money. The airplane will always be there. Who knows what will happen with the transatlantic crossing in the future? If you go by ship, your children will always know in years to come, that they have partaken in the legacy of the great liners of history, to which the so called "cruise" ships of today bear pale resemblence. That having been said, I agree that any major European travel should be overland once there, since any European cruise will merely touch the coast.

 

Um, you are wrong. If the Op was asking about HOW to travel TO Europe, then LAND would not have been an option , right. I heard Americans aren't so hot at geograhpy but you do realize the only way to cross the OCEAN would be by FLIGHT or SEA.

 

Ha ha, you are funny.

[franu]

As this is an introduction (at least to some family members) to Europe, I will share with you my intro. Approximately 3 decades ago, I left my DH home with the kids and took a Med. cruise solo. Although my DH and I had done 3 weeks on land in England, Scotland and Wales this was my first trip to the continent.

 

I shared a cabin with a stranger through a match program however I tried to go my own way as often as possible. This will not be your problem. Mine was a 14 day western Med cruise which took us to ports on both the north and south shores.

 

I just absolutely enjoyed the fact that I was tasting the many places we visited on this wonderful sailing buffet. Like the buffet restaurants on land one tastes a bit of each of a few foods and will also try new ones. Then we can return to have some more of the ones that we like the best. Needless to say, I instantly fell in love with Italy. I have been there 12 times from one or two days on the cruise to 6 weeks on land. I have been fortunate to stay with friends and families of friends in their homes in various areas of Italy. I have then had very in depth visits but yes I will be going back there on my cruise this year.

 

I believe that the places that I visited on the ship's tour back then was a major ingredient in my taste for being in Italy. My heart just sings as I reach Italy. This may be different for your family that is why I am suggesting that choosing a cruise with a 3 day pre-cruise in the city, or closest to where you will embark.

 

In any case have a great trip. Your first European trip is a rehearsal for the trip of a lifetime. Taste, chew as well as you can, but the next, and we know that there will be a next, will be a true dining experience.

Fran