Cruise or Land - First Time Europe
 

Never been to Europe---we're trying to decide whether to see a little of lots of places on a cruiseship,
or a lot of a couple of places by land! Have 2 weeks. Advice?

Thanks,
Linda

I have only been on a cruise once, and while I had a good time, I was frustrated by the short amount of time in each port. Not long enough to go out to dinner, go to concerts or theater, see more than one or two sights or neighborhoods. So for Europe especially, where those are some of my favorite parts of traveling, I would prefer a land based vacation. In Europe, it is fun to participate in different cultures, while on a cruise, there is the culture of the ship that you go back to each night rather than being immersed in the local culture.

Not that I would turn down a mediterranean cruise if one were dropped in my lap, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Personally, I would much prefer land. You get to see so much more of a place that way. Have you ever taken a cruise before? If you like them (I don't), maybe a Europe cruise is something to consider.

Here's one land itinerary suggestion:

Fly to Paris (overnight from U.S)
Paris 4 nights
Train to Nice
Nice 3 nights
Train to Cinque Terre
Cinque Terre 3 nights
Train to Rome
Rome 3 nights
Fly home

That's 14 nights. If you add on a few nights, consider flying in to London for a few nights and then taking Eurostar to Paris.

I'm sure you will get many other good suggestions here. Travel style and preference is pretty personal and subjective, so just do what feels right. How active are you? What are your interests? What do you like to get out of your vacations?

I hope this helps.
Laura

I am just assuming you are from the U.S. Sorry to assume, in case you are not!

The experiences are quite different as I think you have already figured out. To really do Europe I think yo need to be on the land - a big part of a European trip to me is a change of lifestyle - enjoying the cafes, the local foods, the unique shops, getting a little lost, interacting with the locals, using the public transportation, even watching the local TV shows. If you don't want to do all the planning and navigating, you could do a land tour and get more of the authentic European experience than you will on a ship. We probably did 20 land trips on our own before we did a cruise but I enjoyed that too. The choice really depends on what type of vacation you want to have but you will not get the same feel for Europe by doing a cruise as you will on the land!

If it is your first time in Europe, go by land. Most of the interesting capital cities are far away from ports - Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, even Rome.

It is very easy to travel Europe. You may either use the excellent train system or rent a car - it is a matter of destinations and and of personal tastes.

Visiting Europe by cruise is like the Europeans who visit North America in 10 days - just hopping from destination to destination without meeting the spirit of the place.

If you plan to visit Europe, please restrict yourself to a few countries and spend at least three days at one destination. It is much more rewarding than the "it's Thursday, it must be Belgium"-style of travel.

Hi L,

If you want to visit Europe, you choose to go to Europe.

If you want to go on a cruise, you choose a cruise.

They are totally different.

((I))

It may sound weird, but as Europeans we have made several cruises around Europe, BECAUSE we already knew most ports of call. Otherwise, it would have been too frustrating to have only a few hours for destinations like Cote d'Azur, Barcelona, London, Paris, Copenhagen...

Image docking at Le Havre. From there you need three hours to Paris. This means, you have just 4 or 5 hours to see Paris and you spend more time on the road than in town. And you pay a fortune for this tour.

I'll be the devil's advocate on this one...

We're taking a cruise from Genoa to Le Havre this summer instead of having a land-based vacation in Europe.

For us, the cruise makes the trip affordable. Yes, you can't eat all your meals in little European cafes, but we save money by having breakfast and dinner on the ship already included in our cruise fare.

We've spent considerable time in London, and enjoy really in-depth exploring, but this summer, a taste of Europe is better than no Europe.

Annette

I'm going to disagree here, although <b>linda8</b> should supply a wee bit more information, such as where the cruise goes (Mediterranean? Baltic?)

With two weeks I think the cruise is not only a good platform for a first visit, but also an economical and easy one.

First timers can - not in every case of course - be distracted by all the logistics. Trains and tubes and unfamiliar languages and schlepping bags and jetlag... before you know it several of those 10 or 14 days have been gobbled up in dealing with survival, rather than seeing things. Now for sure you learn a lot by discovering how to find a B &amp; B in some old town, and it is indeed fun to navigate the grocery stores or the subway stations. But a &quot;first&quot; trip hopefully is just that - the first of many. Europe isn't going anywhere.

The cruise ship <i>can</i> be an isolation booth from &quot;real&quot; Europe, especially if you fall victim to the many corny excursions offered by the cruise line for ridiculous prices.

However, it can also be a vacation where the logistic hassles are minimized - unpack once, sleep in a good bed every night, etc. - while the chance to see things on shore, and to see things that <i>can't bee seen from shore</i> can take center stage.

We took a cruise around the Med a couple of years ago (trip report here: http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34498271)
in which I was quite critical of cruise-based tourists. I've since changed my tune, a little. If it's seen as an introduction to Europe, a way to prepare oneself for further &quot;deep&quot; rather than &quot;wide&quot; travels, then it's a good thing. If it's a substitute for Disneyland or a week at Club Med, then stay someplace where the booze is cheaper.

I agree with everything everyones told you, pro and con. Honestly, the best way to see Europe in a few weeks time is to pick 2 or 3 places, and do a land trip. Usually a cruise is more economical and you get more places. It can be exhausting, because you only have so many hours per day in a new place, and can't dwaddle on board, or you'll miss everything. Then if you want to enjoy everything on the ship, entertainment, lounges, casinos, you're going to be tired in the morning for your next stop. But, we stopped in Dubrovnik a few years ago on a cruise for 8 hours. We were so suprised and impressed we ended up going back last year for a week.

Generally speaking, I agree with what most people have written. I have travelled in Europe land only and have also been on 2 2-week European cruises and have also been on other cruises.

A couple questions...

Is this also your first cruise? If so, then I definitely don't recommend combining first cruise and first trip to Europe. Too much to deal with and figure out.

Who is the &quot;we?&quot; Are there children and/or older folks, people with highly varying energy levels, travel needs/styles, etc?

Do you expect this trip to be a once in a lifetime or the first of many?

I think these are all important things to consider in your decision making process.

Thanks to everyone!!! Yes, I have cruised many times, just have never been to Europe. I think the general consensus is to go to a couple of places over a 2 week period and REALLY take your time and see it. I did wonder if many of the ports were far from the actual place you'd want to see, and how much time would be burned up just getting there. I think I'll forget the cruise right now (unless I find a steal of a price), and plan a land vacation. Anyone want to be my guide? :) Oh, it's me &amp; Hubby, can't afford the kids (teens), and possibly another couple. Thanks again to all you nice Fodorites!!!
Linda

Hi Linda, I think cruising is great, and I would consider a Greek Isles and Turkey cruise, but, to see and enjoy some of the most famous and attraction packed cities in Europe , like Paris and Rome, you are looking at long commutes from /to ports so the actual time you get to be in a place is mere hours. Who wants to say they've seen Paris when they actually only had 5 hours there!!?? Europe is tiring if one tries to do alot, so an interestin compromise might be a week in a city ( Rome or Paris) then join a cruise for a weeek.

That's exactly what we did last year! My DH loves to cruise and I loved Croatia, so we rented a car and drove from one charming village to another great island for a week, and then we hopped on a cruise ship and did the Greek Isles, Split, Croatia and the Amalfi Coast. It was a good compromise, and YOU could do a week of Rome &amp; Florence or Venice &amp; Florence and then board a ship from Venice or Rome for the Eastern Med., which doesn't have so many major city stops. A week of Greek Islands, plus a little of Turkey or a little of southern Italy (Sicily). It's almost the perfect solution to your question.

Oh linda8, you opened a can of worms.

Many of us would like to be your guide. Pick me. I know my way around the Mediterranean. :D

One option you might want to consider is 'Easycruise'. Same company as the Easyjet budget airline now offering budget cruises around the med. None of the usual cruise experience (meals not included etc) but the idea is that it is more of a travelling hotel than a cruise. They arrive in port for lunchtime and do not leave until late evening/early hours of the morning for a short-hop overnight sail to the next port. It is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of their waking hours off the ship/go partying on-shore in the evenings.

As long as you like the colour orange and don't want too much luxury they look good. It is a converted cruise ship so you can upgrade from the budget cabins to suites etc for a nicer experience.

River cruises have become quite popular in Europe, besides the typical cruises in the Mediterranean and Baltic Sea.

Danube cruises seem to be the most favorite among the river cruises, and will usually take you from Germany via Vienna and Bratislava to Budapest. Most will stop at Melk abbey, or at other scenic places.

While I am usually no big fan of any kind of tour, I think that one of the pros of river cruises is that you get to see more of the countryside than during a cruise on the Mediterranean. And definetely more from the sun deck of a river cruise ship than from the window of a tour bus or high speed train. Plus you don't waste all that time to/from airports/train stations, checking in/out of hotels, etc.
Most ports are located in the heart of the cities, so you are not limited to organized land trips, but can go on your own as well.

One of the cons may be that you will not experience major changes in scenery during a river cruise.

Since most river cruises only last for 7-8 days or so, you can combine those easily with other destinations like Paris, Rome, or Florence.

I've seen many of those cruise groups in Rome and Sicily, they were herded like cattle, running after a sign with a number. I don't think they have seen much of these places except a few overcrowded tourist attractions.
Another vote for going by land.

Hadn't thought of doing 1 week land / 1 week cruise.....Hmmmm........