Western Med - Cruise or Land tour?

[JerseyBird]

Please don't be offended, I know this broad are all cruise lovers (so am I). I just booked my first Med cruise: NCL Gem - Barcelona round trip ( Barcelona; Valletta; Naples; Rome (Civitavecchia); Florence / Pisa (Livorno); Cannes ). I was excited, but further study, I realized that the major attractions are far from the ports, i.e. Rome is 1.5-2 hours away. So that makes the whole day very hectic (time-wise). So I am not sure if cruise is really a good idea to tour Europe. I know one day to any major city is not enough, I am not expecting really in-depth visit, but is it too brief?

Can you experienced cruisers shed some lights on this as far as the pros/cons of cruise on Europe?

 

Thanks a lot!

[flhokie]

It really depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for an in depth visit to cities then a cruise is probably not what you're looking for--unless maybe you visit some of the cities before/after the cruise. I've cruised in the Med a couple of times and have viewed stops at new cities as the opportunity to get a taste of the city and an idea if I'd want to visit again.

 

Our first cruise, we took an in-depth tour through the cruiseline for Rome. We were off the ship around 7 am and returned after 6 pm. During our time in Rome we toured St. Peter's, the Colesseum and the Vatican Museum (with Sistine Chapel). There was also a drive through tour of the city. Yes, we could have spent more time in the Vatican Museum, but I feel like a got to see a lot in a short period of time (my 2nd trip we did Trevi Fountain and the Pantheon). In Florence, we reserved tickets to the Accadamia in advance. We did Florence on Your Own and were able to visit the Accadamia, see the Bapistry Doors & Duomo and St. Croce.

 

Personally, I hate re-packing, dealing with trains/flights and hauling our luggage (have learned to pack very light thanks to Europe). I'd rather unpack once, have a full day in port--knowing I won't see everything and then keep going. Some prefer to spend more time in cities and enjoy the trains, etc. It really is an individual preference.

[CathyCruises]

First of all, Rome is only about an hour away by train. Secondly, at least for the present, cruises are a GREAT bargain. Europe is extremely expensive for hotels, food, etc., and it is so great to have prepaid for all that, other than snacks and maybe lunches in ports. No, you will not get an in depth experience in each of those ports, but you will be able to hit the highlights and maybe decide if a longer stay is worth it for you in the future. It is so great to spend a day in Rome, go to sleep, and wake up in Naples, or Florence, or Athens.

 

Both DH and I lived in Europe years ago, but we still find cruising a wonderful way to visit. YMMV.

 

Cathy

[mountainmare]

This is an interesting discussion http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=941828&highlight=land+tour

After reading the thread above I asked DH for his favorite places. For us also most were places where we had time to savor. We spent a few days pre-cruise in Barcelona and loved the city--when revisiting as a one day port we noticed that we probably would not like it as much. There are advantages--the no packing and unpacking--the travel in the same room every night. There are disadvantages---not enough time, especially in the evening to enjoy what a city has to offer (I have to go back to Lisbon for Fado!!) and the return to an American bubble each day.

 

If this would be your "trip of a lifetime" only chance to see Europe I would say do not cruise--pick a place that pulls at your heart and do it right, but if this is a lets get a taste of Europe then cruising is fine.

[chipmaster]

Please don't be offended, I know this broad are all cruise lovers (so am I). I just booked my first Med cruise: NCL Gem - Barcelona round trip ( Barcelona; Valletta; Naples; Rome (Civitavecchia); Florence / Pisa (Livorno); Cannes ). I was excited, but further study, I realized that the major attractions are far from the ports, i.e. Rome is 1.5-2 hours away. So that makes the whole day very hectic (time-wise). So I am not sure if cruise is really a good idea to tour Europe. I know one day to any major city is not enough, I am not expecting really in-depth visit, but is it too brief?

Can you experienced cruisers shed some lights on this as far as the pros/cons of cruise on Europe?

 

Thanks a lot!

 

To answer your concerns: Yes each and every port day can be hectic. It really is up to the cruiser and how they schedule the day to how it ends up. Often people forget its hectic not so much for the distance from port to city but how you schedule your day. We actually found that the drive time was the most relaxing time ( that is napping/relaxing time, or nice talking time with your guide/driver ).

 

We found the most rewarding and enjoyable stops were Rome, Florence/Pisa, and Naples, the most hectic were the most enjoyable. The reason they are hectic is that there is so much to see. So you stretch to see the most, and you can do it if you are smart and use private tours. you can also make it a leisure day by picking two things to see, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

 

As to the pro/con of cruising versus land. What made us go cruising

1) Limited time wanted to see the most. Cruising allowed 10 cities in 14 days. In two weeks we hit Rome, Athens, Naples, Florence, Venice, Istanbul, Ephesus, Barcelona, Athens and every major iconic historical place in those cities. Simply not possible on land tour with same ease.

2) With 3 generations and 11 people the logistics of doing train, airplane and pack/unpack with tight schedule wasn't going to work. Nothing beats the convenience of unpacking once. Everyday wake up in a new port, no worries about breakfast/dinner, evening entertainment. Yeah you give up the ability to really experience a given country/culture/city but more then worthy trade off for what we got listed in 1).

 

Now would I ever cruise the same route again? No way as been there done, that. If I was to return it would be to explore the cities in detail or do another whirlwind of a different geographical area. I can't fathom people who do it over and over when there is so much more to explore in depth or breadth, or perhaps they have already seen the world or the rest is of no interest :confused:

 

Don't worry you'll have the vacation of a lifetime :D

[sunsetbeachgal]

We enjoy cruising for the ease (unpacking once, not getting lost, food provided, etc) and for exposing us to areas that we eventually would like to come back to, to see in-depth, which we try to do. And you cover so much more ground on a cruise than you can on land. But, if you want to see an area or areas in more depth and not rush from one place to another, then a land based holiday might be better for you.

 

I always get a chuckle when I see posts on these boards such as "Rome or Florence in a day, can I do it all?" Of course, the answer is absolutely "No". Doing it all, to me, is strolling along streets, ducking into a lovely church to look at centuries old art, looking at architecture, taking a break in a park, etc, and really experiencing the feel of Europe, not just rushing from place to place!

[bqkali]

Secondly, at least for the present, cruises are a GREAT bargain. Europe is extremely expensive for hotels, food, etc., and it is so great to have prepaid for all that, other than snacks and maybe lunches in ports.

 

While I don't disagree, I would like to point out that ANY trip to Europe right now is a great bargain. Tourism in general has taken a huge hit and there are discounts all over the place for any travel type. If you are interested in a land tour, sign up for travel discount newsletters and email lists. I have seen some incredible deals.

 

I recently got back from an 11-day trip to Spain. Total cost including airfare, trains, hotels, meals, admissions, evening shows, public transportation costs, and even souvenirs was $1750 per person. So a cheap trip to Europe can be found, but I will admit it takes more research than just signing up for a cruise excursion.

 

Regardless, I think that cruising offers significant advantages if you wish to try out several different places - it's easy and convenient and you only have to unpack once. You can get a feel for where you really like and return in the future for a longer trip. But if, like the OP, you are worried about the experience being too hectic, you can pick two or three places to see in a week and slow down and really enjoy those cities. Trains and buses are easy, and if you pick cities reasonably close to each other (say Rome and Florence) then you won't spend too much time traveling between them. You can use those cities as bases for day trips so you don't have to unpack as often. Land trips are also an awesome way to see some of Europe.

 

OP: Like you said, there are pros/cons to either style of traveling. I would take a good look at the cities on your cruise itinerary. Out of them, which are you absolutely dying to see? Are there others you don't care about? In each port, what excursion would you choose? If in one city, you find that there are 3 or 4 excursions you are really interested in, I would recommend instead doing a land trip instead and doing all those activities and then move on to the next city. But, if in your planning, you find there's only one excursion that you really want to do in each port, then you can certainly enjoy your 1 day in that city and then enjoy another, different culture the next morning. Cruising is great for the variety.

 

For the best of both worlds, fly into Barcelona a day or two early and explore Barcelona before boarding the cruise. Then enjoy your brief visits at each port - you can always return later to your favorite place on your next trip to Europe. At the end of the cruise, fly or take the train to one city that you really want to dig into and stay there 3 or 4 nights before flying home. Trains/flights within Europe are very affordable so when you disembark in Barcelona, just grab a cab to the train station or airport and head to your final destination. Overall, it would make a well-balanced 2-week vacation.

[sandinmyshoes]

In my mind, cruising is perfect for a 1st or 2nd visit to the Med. where you want to get a good feel for the region and pick your favorite spots to spend more time in on a subsequent trip. Also, you can pick a cruise that starts or ends in a city you are particularly interested in and spend a couple of extra days pre/post cruise in those locations.

One advantage to consider about cruising is the forced down time of the occasional sea day. I know you want to see as much as possible, but with all the touring, walking, and jet lag you WILL be exhausted. I could never stop and take a day to recoup on my own with all those wonderful places to visit, but a cruise forces me to do it & in the end I enjoy my trip that much more because I'm not killing myself to see & do everything. Another advantage would be the availability of food onboard that is known to your stomach, so when you do enjoy the local food it doesn't completely send your system out of wack.

The last thing I think you should consider is a cruise isn't necessarily the cheaper option. Unless you are a big comparison shopper, a cruise can cost every bit as much as a land-based tour package because some ports are so intensive you can't see them adequately on your own or with a ship's tour. You really get to see so much more with a private tour. (There's lots of info on this board about who does the best tours in each port of call if you are interested.) These can really add to the overall cost of your cruise vacation. Of course, there are ways to cut the cost of those wonderful private tours. You can go on your ship's roll call here on cruise critic and ask others on your sailing to join you. Generally the private tours are a set price no matter if you have 2 people or 8 people, so if you get others to join you the price per person drops dramatically making it cheaper than the ship tours on large buses with 40+ others & can't get into the main sites of the cities therefore adding unnecessary walking & cutting into your touring time.

 

Hope these thoughts are helpful. Either way, the Med. (particularly Italy) is still my all time favorite vacation location & you will be glad you spent the money (no matter how much) to experience it. It's fun for adults & kids and provides such a real world experience you can never learn in a classroom.

[sailor moon]

We had this dilemma last year and decided to do DH's 1st visit to Europe as a land tour to get a broad taste of Europe. We chose a 14 day "Best of Europe" Rick Steves bus tour with 26 people that started in Paris and ended in Rome. It was hectic, fascinating, eye opening, tiring and a trip of a lifetime. This year we opted for a Med cruise that is going to 2 of the places we went to last summmer - Rome and Florence. Once again it will be hectic, exciting.... This time I am looking forward to the cruise part because I really enjoy being on the water. Both types are great ways to see the world and I think we will alternate them as we are able.

[Bruin Steve]

My two cents:

 

First, I have traveled quite extensively in Europe for the past 35 years...My first Europe trip was while in college--I spent the entire summer wandering Europe by train...Then, my honeymoon--3+ weeks by bus, boat and rental car through six countries...since then, I have taken several land trips and several cruises...

 

I love cruises...But, what I usually do is to combine the cruise with pre- or post cruise stays somewhere...either in the embarkation/debarkation ports or to some arbitrary other location in Europe, ofte taking several days to tour a region...

 

That way, I get the best of both worlds...For example, this June, I am doing a 14 night cruise...and adding three extra hotel nights each in Barcelona and in Istanbul--two cities I've visited before, Barcelona several times...But that gives me time to enjoy both cities in depth and also to visit 8 other ports...

 

Anyone who tells you that you can "see more" with a land trip isn't being 100% accurate...It all depends on your schedule and itinerary...You can definitely see any city or area with more depth as long as you plan to spend a few days there...You can buzz through Europe trying to fit in 8 stops in a two week trip and see LESS than you would on a cruise...You'll spend more time either driving from place to place or waiting in bus and train stations and checking in and out of hotels than you do actually touring...With a cruise, all the logistics occur while you are eating, being entertained and sleeping...If you stop in Rome for one day... yes you have a two hour round trip to the center of the city (my last port tour, we made it in LESS than an hour--our driver knew the alternate route and, not being in a big bus, we were not required to take the main road with the traffic...you will still be able to see quite a bit...probably have aslmost as many actual touring hours as you would if you pulled into Rome late after driving there from somewhere else, checked into a hotel, toured some the next day then drove off to Naples of Florence...

 

there are "trade-offs" in cruise versus land tour...With most cruises, you will miss most of the "night life" in port...You go back to the ship each evening and do the nightlife thing on board--missing the "local flavor"...But I have been fortunate enough to have been on ships with either scheduled "overnights" in port or with late hours in port--allowing you to stay late if you wished...in some ports...

 

I, personally, love the cruise experience...and we like visiting a lot of places each time--getting a lot of variety...The ideal "land trip" is different...Pick a city or region and concentrate your time there...Say, stay in Madrid and make day trips to Toledo and Avila and Segovia and so on...or in Florence and visit San Gimignano and Lucca and Volterra and Pisa...But, if you want to experience multiple countries and cultures in the same trip...to get more of a "sampler", a cruise is a better option...

 

But, again, the BEST choice, IMHO, is to do the cruise with an extended pre- or post-cruise and get the best of both experiences...

[JerseyBird]

Thank you all for the wonderful insights!

 

I will do more homework. A couple ports I am not familiar, Valletta, Malta and Cannes, France, I am not sure what I can make out of them.

 

Europe is fascinating, I know, either way, I am not going to go too wrong!

 

Thanks again!

[Hlitner]

We find both cruises and land trips to be fun and totally different experiences. Our simple formula (been doing this for a few years) is to use a ship to get to or from Europe (we love transatlantics) and offer do back-to-back to add a Med or Baltic cruise. Than, after the cruise (or before if we are heading back to the USA) we rent a car and explore different areas of Europe (currently driving in France). Of course this only works for those with lots of time, but it rewards us with the best of both worlds,...cruise and land.

 

Hank

[dumbth]

A couple ports I am not familiar, Valletta, Malta and Cannes, France, I am not sure what I can make out of them.

Malta you can look up, but for Cannes you may be in the same dilemma as me. The stop is very short to let them reach Barcelona early enough to turnaround the ship, so you don't quite have time to jump on the train for the world of wonderful excursions from there. If you do get stuck in that somewhat bland city, the old town on the hill to the left isn't too bad, with a little museum in the tower being surprisingly good.

[jocap]

Malta is an experience not to be missed. Read up about this brave nation which starved rather than give in to German/Italian bombing during WW2. Throughout time, someone or other has tried to overrun them, and now they are free. Just gliding into that magnificent harbour is reason enough to go on the cruise. You'll moor at the base of the cliff, so just walk or catch the bus up to a wonderful medieval city-where English is the 2nd language and the wine is cheap! Enjoy-jocap.

[awatt]

If there is somewhere you are really really excited to see, then do a land tour. I've always wanted to go to Italy, particularly the Amalfi coast. Two years ago we took a tour that spent a few days in Rome then the rest of the time in the Amalfi coast. It was a dream come true. I got much more of a feel for the area, it's beauty and warm people than if I had a 1 day port stop at Naples. And there was time to relax, people watch and soak it all in. I'll never forget dining on the water one night n Sorrento and watching a processional in the nearby streets for the feast of the Assumption, and the fireworks that followed. Then there was the private boat ride on Capri and swimming in the Med off the boat. And the amazing drive along the coast to Positano. All these thing could not be doen in a day or two, and I'm glad I did the land trip.

 

If, on the other hand you don't have your heart set on a place to go, a cruise is a reat way to sample the Med.

[hat776]

Malta is a tiny island = yet many people spend a week here and still don't see all it has to offer.

Cruising is a lovely experience but as everyone says it is just a taster of the towns.

For example, art/culture buffs could spend a week in Florence and still feel they haven't seen everything.

As we live in Europe, we often base ourselves somewhere and hire a car. We spend a week or so touring the area and really get the feel of the place. However, we'll only have seen one small area.

Only you can decide if cruising is for you - we enjoy the whole concept. Only you can decide if you prefer spending a week in Rome and seeing it in depth with maybe an excursion to Orvieto. Or if you prefer a relaxing time on the ship with relatively short visits to various towns and no evenings having a drink in a piazza.

Of course , if you have the time and the money a pre and after cruise stay somewhere for a few days is ideal.

[hat776]

The entry into the Grand Harbour of Malta is spectacular as you are surrounded by bastions and fortified cities. It’s a completely natural harbour with creeks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1C9oX9287A&feature=channel_page

You will dock at the Valletta Waterfront - http://www.vallettawaterfront.com -

Once in Valletta, make sure you go to the Barakka Gardens overlooking the harbour, you'll see your ship. Also St John's Co-Cathedral. You can relax in one of the many cafes then just walk down to your ship.

Have a look at

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=964968

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=885786- recent comments

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g190328-Activities-Valletta_Island_of_Malta.html

You can of course, also take a bus or taxi and visit somewhere like the medieval town of Mdina. However, just taking it easy in Valletta is also enjoyable.

[CathyCruises]

I recently got back from an 11-day trip to Spain. Total cost including airfare, trains, hotels, meals, admissions, evening shows, public transportation costs, and even souvenirs was $1750 per person. So a cheap trip to Europe can be found, but I will admit it takes more research than just signing up for a cruise excursion.

 

.

 

Was this an organized tour, or on your own? And from where in the US did you fly? Also, what caliber were the hotel rooms? I'd be interested in knowing more if either France or Italy are available at those rates!

 

I will say that in our experience, a nice hotel room was $200/night plus--in Paris, in Barcelona, and in Venice. So I am really curious about these other opportunities.

 

Thanks!

 

Cathy

[bqkali]

Was this an organized tour, or on your own? And from where in the US did you fly? Also, what caliber were the hotel rooms? I'd be interested in knowing more if either France or Italy are available at those rates!

 

I will say that in our experience, a nice hotel room was $200/night plus--in Paris, in Barcelona, and in Venice. So I am really curious about these other opportunities.

 

We did it on our own. I speak Spanish, so I was not too concerned about any problems with getting around or checking in to hotels or any other logistics. To be honest, that was a big help. We took public transportation or walked everywhere within cities (we only had 2 cabs total over the course of the entire trip) which was another money saver. We ate one big meal a day, choosing lighter fare for either lunch or dinner, which was another way to save money and also save time while still enjoying local foods, wines, and customs.

 

We flew from Rochester, NY - had flights from ROC-JFK on Delta and separately booked JFK-BCN/MAD-JFK on Iberian. Total cost for airfare was about $600pp. Sales on European airfare are AWESOME right now. We also had one domestic flight within Spain (about $65pp including luggage fees) and several trains and buses within the country. Spain's Renfe train offers sales of 50% off if you are able to book about 60 days in advance and fully prepay which saved a bundle - I had similar experiences with trains in France, England, and Belgium on previous trips. A three hour bus ride between cities was less than 10 euro per person, so a great deal cheaper than renting a car. It is slightly less convenient to rely on the bus schedules and also not be able to stop at sights along the way, but you also don't have to bother with going to the rental office to pick up and return the car, plus there is no headache with getting lost or crazy drivers on the road or different driving laws.

 

We had two free nights at the Renaissance in Barcelona, but all other nights were at simple guesthouses, probably 2-3* ratings. The hotels were never fancy, but always clean, centrally located (with the exception of the Renaissance), and with private bathroom ;) Our rooms were the equivalent of an inside cabin on a cruise ship...small but adequate. I think our most expensive night was 75 euro and our cheapest 45. We are in our room ONLY to shower and sleep so we don't care about amenities such as room service or hotel bars. I stayed at similar style lodging in France (Paris, Strasbourg, and Lille) so I know it exists there and would imagine it is available in Italy as well. Most guidebooks do not mention most of these hotels, but Rick Steve's guidebooks always have affordable options, and I also like Wikitravel website as a great source. Lonely Planet and Trip Advisor are also good sources for finding great accomodations at affordable prices.

 

Like I said earlier, a great balance would be to spend 2-4 nights in a city before the cruise, then 7-days on the cruise itself, and another 2-4 nights in a different city after the cruise. It would allow you to see 2 cities in depth, only unpack a few times, plus get some tastes of other cities via the cruise. But in our case, we had many places in Spain that we wanted to see that were not easily reached by cruise ship so it made more sense to do everything by "land". That being said, I would LOVE to do a Mediterranean cruise and highly recommend that option for many people...just pointing out that both can be done affordably, should you wish to do so.

 

It takes a lot of time and planning to do a budget trip successfully, but it can be done if you are willing to put in the effort.

[Wakkyj]

What a great discussion! I don't know that I can add anything to the excellent comments already made... My husband and I travel to Europe each year, occasionally for a week and sometimes just for a few days. I don't think we would ever consider a cruise for western Mediterranean as it is so easy to do on land. We always travel on our own without tours. In my mind one of the main benefits of land vs cruise is the ability to stay in cities and regions for a longer more in depth stay. Not just for seeing more of the sights, but just wandering and soaking in the atmosphere and finding a great little restaurant. When I think back to our best memories, they are not of the museums or sites but of experiencing the area we visited.

 

Having said all that, we are planning a 12-day eastern Mediterranean for the fall and feel like its the best choice - I just don't feel like planning travelling between Turkey, the Greek Isles and Egypt on our own, plus we do get several days in Istanbul pre-cruise.

 

As others have said, if you are looking for a sampler of Europe and mainly want to see as many sights as possible, cruise is a good bet. If you are in love with one or two destinations then land will give you the most time and flexibility. Either way you will have a wonderful time!