12 day grand med vs 7 day west with extra days in Rome (please give perspective)

[NalCruiser]

Not sure what is the best forum for this question but I wanted some insight on why to choose one type of trip over another just to help make some decisions.

 

first option is to do 12 day grand mediterrenean:

NLC Spirit: venice overnight, athens, ephesus, istanbul, naples, mykonos, rome, livorno, toulon and barcelona.

Amazing itinerary for sure but also jam packed

 

 

second option is to forgo the east for now and instead do a 7 day west with some extra land time.

So to do a few days in Rome and maybe some other place and then take a 7 day from rome on NLC Epic that goes to:

livorno, naples, palma de mallorca, barcelona and marseille.

 

 

I realize this is greatly personal preferrence but wondering what would YOU choose and why, especially if one has never been to these places.

Hopefully I can one day go back and do places I missed (or do the places I did in more detail) but is there anything key to think of when considering these options?

one more thing to throw in is that the epic (shorter cruise) is the newer, nicer ship. Although of course, I'd be going there for europe.

[rebeccalouiseagain]

No choice- the 12 night is far superior. Venice and Istanbul are special ports to sail in and out of. They are both fantastic cruising experiences. Venice and Barcelona are the easiest ports to embark from and disembark from because the airports are 20 minutes from the ports (unlike Rome).

 

Having the overnight in Venice makes it stress-free. You don't have to add on a day pre-cruise because you have the ship as your hotel in Venice. You'll board around 11AM and then you can nap if you wish and take in Venice at night- which is great because it becomes comparatively deserted at night- when all the "day trippers" are gone. It is a romantic city at night with dueling orchestras playing in St. Mark's Square.

 

Athens- we didn't get off the ship in Athens. It was too hot. We made that a ship day.

 

Istanbul is easy to DIY. The sites; Hagia Sofia, The Blue Mosque and the Topkapi Palace are close to where the ship docks. It's a magnificent city.

 

Ephesus is fantastic and probably the best ruins I have seen. Turkey is an absolutely beautiful country and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

Naples there is a wealth of things to do- Herculaneum is better than Pompeii IMO. Less crowded, smaller and more intact. Very close to ship. You can also do Pompeii in the same day if you want or even do a trip to Capri and still have time for a visit to either Pompeii or Herculaneum.

 

Mykonos was just ok- you can easily make that a ship day.

 

Rome- I do recommend you do a guided tour or ship tour to make the most of your time there. You won't get to see everything regardless of what you do but at least you'll get a nice overview.

 

In Livorno- I recommend doing the Cinque Terre instead of Florence. Florence is nice but will be swamped with tourists and the Cinque Terre is relaxing and beautiful.

 

Can't comment on Toulon because I've not been there.

 

In Barcelona- we did a half day bus tour to Montserrat (with our luggage onboard) and then they drop you off at the airport. There are other half day tours offered with either an inner city drop off or airport drop off. This makes the most of your time and is cheaper than staying overnight in Barcelona.

[NalCruiser]

wow thanks for such an informative answer!!!

one thing - seems like the ship leaves venice at night (1am) - is that a bad thing?

i keep hearing how one doesn't want to miss the sail-in/sail-out of venice...

[deadzone1003]

Have you considered flying into Rome, spending a few days there, take the train to Florence, spend a few days there, and then taking the train to Venice to board your ship there? You can fly out of Barcelona. Save the Sistine Chapel for your ship day at Rome. Take a ship tour or private tour to Cinque Terre or just visit Pisa and Lucca from Livorno. Rome, Florence, and Istanbul are cities where it is impossible to see the major sites in 1 day. Venice has probably the greatest sailaway of any port with the exception of San Francisco. If time is a constraint, then pick the 12-day cruise. From your tone, returning to Europe is a iffy proposition.

 

Don't worry if it is a new ship or not. You are basically on a floating hotel. These itineraries are port intensive and long hours. You will find yourself eating in the buffet because you are too tired to change after a long day of touring.

[NalCruiser]

would love to do what you said deadzone - my only issue being I probably will not be able to spend more than a couple weeks total and with flights and such a 12 day cruise with maybe an overnight on each end is all I might be able to do.

 

I would not say a return trip is out of question - just not right away - these things take some time to save up for (esp with cost of flight from the US!!) and I don't see flying off to europe every year. (although that would be a marvelous way to live :) )

 

so maybe a return trip will be some years out.

I do love the ports on the 12 day sail, my only concern being that I feel like I will take a tiny bite out of every place with not enough time in major areas (like Rome).

 

With a 7 day I would be able to spend the other 7 days in Rome, Florence, Venice or any city with more time there, and then essentially tack on a cruise to finish off.

[Cornishpastyman1]

Not sure what is the best forum for this question but I wanted some insight on why to choose one type of trip over another just to help make some decisions.

 

first option is to do 12 day grand mediterrenean:

NLC Spirit: venice overnight, athens, ephesus, istanbul, naples, mykonos, rome, livorno, toulon and barcelona.

Amazing itinerary for sure but also jam packed

 

 

second option is to forgo the east for now and instead do a 7 day west with some extra land time.

So to do a few days in Rome and maybe some other place and then take a 7 day from rome on NLC Epic that goes to:

livorno, naples, palma de mallorca, barcelona and marseille.

 

 

I realize this is greatly personal preferrence but wondering what would YOU choose and why, especially if one has never been to these places.

Hopefully I can one day go back and do places I missed (or do the places I did in more detail) but is there anything key to think of when considering these options?

one more thing to throw in is that the epic (shorter cruise) is the newer, nicer ship. Although of course, I'd be going there for europe.

It's got to be the big one, as it has 3 of the great superstar ports, 5 if you count Athens and Barcelona, as many would, and 8 if you count Ephesus, Naples and Livorno, as many would too :) What a mind-blowing itinerary !

 

Mykonos can be your (much-needed) day of rest. Toulon is probably lovely too.

 

In case it helps, there are videos of nearly all of these here, made from 3 separate Med cruises http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1633637 All the best, Tony

[namaste1223]

I'm not an expert by any means since we're going to be taking our first European cruise this summer. Thanks to the research and the advice I've received on CC, I have another possibility to throw into the mix:

I don't know how important the Eastern Med. is to you, but you do indicate that you really aren't sure about just doing a quick stop in some of the major Italian ports if you choose the Grand Med cruise. You could do a 7 day Eastern Med. cruise (one even offers Ephesus, Turkey) and add on a land tour either before or after (DIY or guided). That way you'd have the best of both worlds: not as much of a rush in Italy so you can see more of what you want to and a cruise which visits some of the other ports of the Grand Med cruise. I don't know if this helps, but it's something else to consider. Good luck with your plans!

[texancruzer]

While I love Italy - its a no brainer for me, especially if this is your first trip to Europe...... all of those ports are awesome !

 

THE 12 NIGHT CRUISE !!!!! ;)

[rebeccalouiseagain]

wow thanks for such an informative answer!!!

one thing - seems like the ship leaves venice at night (1am) - is that a bad thing?

i keep hearing how one doesn't want to miss the sail-in/sail-out of venice...

 

I would prefer a daytime sail-in to a night time sail-out also. The cruise you may want to consider is Holland America. They do Venice roundtrip and overnights in Venice the first two nights and overnights in Istanbul. That's the one I chose for the itinerary and it was a fantastic cruise.

 

Heres is the itinerary and the dates it is offered in 2013

 

Holland America Line-ms Nieuw Amsterdam

 

Venice, Katakolon, Athens/Piraeus, Dardanelles, Istanbul, Lesvos, Kusadasi, Thira, Argostolion, Venice

 

4departure dates: May 27, Jul 2, Aug 7, Sep 12 2013

[NalCruiser]

Hmm rebeccalouiseagain, had not looked at holland, will have to look into it! But no Rome on itinerary? I did really want to see the colloseum....

 

seems like everyone is recommending the 12 night option...

but just some additional thoughts wondering if this changes the game - what about the 7 day trip from Rome that would also then combine Paris and London on land?

[rebeccalouiseagain]

Decisions, decisions....

 

I have done land trips and cruise trips. I still usually stay a couple of days pre and post cruise but I have to say that for overall enjoyment I like the cruise the best. It is also the best value.

 

Certain cruise ports are THE way to visit the area- I would say that Venice, Istanbul, Santorini, Kusadasi, Dubrovnik and Barcelona are the best cruise ports I've encountered. Really lovely.

 

I'm not discouraging you from doing a 7-night cruise with 7 nights on land but I think you'll get more bang for the buck by doing the 12-night Eastern Med cruise. Especially since you'll probably never fly to Turkey because of the distance and expense.

 

You can always return to Europe at a later date and visit other cities like you have proposed. I have gone back and done different itineraries and also done land travel- so don't feel that you have to see it all on the first trip.

[ShellDil]

Another thought is to combine two 7 day cruises with Rome before or after. We couldn't find one longer cruise that fit what we were looking for so we ended up doing the Royal Caribbean Navigator out of Rome for the Eastern Med followed by the Epic out of Rome for the Western Med. We're adding additional days at the end, but if you look at the various lines and sailings you may find a combination that works in your time frame. Actually, in this scenario, the Navigator gets into Rome (well Civitavecchia) on a Sunday and the Epic departs on a Wednesday, so you can get your extra sightseeing days in between ships.

 

As a matter of fact, someone else on our roll call is doing the same thing, but in reverse, the Epic and then the Navigator.

[cruisychoosy]

i'm new to posting on the boards but not new to cruising or europe, and let me give you some perspective as someone who has lived in and traveled europe. You are certainly not off the mark when you are concerned about not having enough time when you only have a day in port and often are quite a way away from the actual destination. You cannot see Rome in a day and I dont think anybody here is going to tell you differently. That aside, there is a big difference with rushing through "seeing sights" on hot day with a billion other tourists flooding in from cruise ships and everywhere else, and actually experiencing a place - immersing yourself in the culture, the people, taking your time to see the sights during hours and times when there are fewer crowds, take the off-beaten paths and so on. The two cannot be compared.

 

 

Cruises are wonderful but "seeing Europe" this way is like seeing the tip of the iceberg and you don't know even realize what you are missing because you are just breezing through trying to cram as many countries as you can in as few days as possible. And you can miss what that place is about entirely when your sole focus is simply some sight point you run to every day. Cruises offer somewhat of an appetizer to European destinations, but to have the main course you actually have to truly "GO" there. I do agree that some areas are great by cruise - Santorini for instance. Yes, you can go spend two weeks in Santorini and that would be a wonderful vacation, but sailing to it be a cruise is a perfect way to see it as well. Rome however, not so much. A cruise would not be my preferred way to see Rome by any means. You will probably experience an exhausting crowded day being herded down the tourist tracks and miss... well ROME. Florence - same. And so on.

 

 

I like rebeccalouiseagain suggestion of taking a 12 night east - no question that Istanbul is simply the must-go-to port and with an overnight there especially, this would be an awesome cruise. If you have never been to Venice, Istanbul and so on, a cruise will be a great way to sail to/from both and Venice at night is magic. (do not make the mistake of not spending extra time there before/after your cruise.) If I had to tack extra days anywhere to the beginning or end of a cruise it would be Venice.

 

 

So all that said, cruises are definitely nice BUT.... if you really want to experience Europe and especially some of these places you mention, a cruise in my opinion will not be the best option for many of the destinations as "the way to see them". I think a cruise is a wonderful vacation as long as you realize it is a buffet of appetizers jam packed into a short period of time - there is a big difference between someone who says they've "seen Rome" and they are talking about having spent a week there and someone who says they've been to Rome and they mean that they docked in Civitavecchia and crammed in a day of fighting the crowds to do some sights.

 

 

And as far as London and Paris, there is no question that both those are must-see cities of the world. And once again, not places to just breeze through - rushing through "sights" is not remotely in the same category as truly immersing yourself in these amazing places and experiencing what 99% of rush-through tourists miss.

 

 

If I had 2 weeks to spend in Europe I would definitely consider spending more time in a few places (as in more than just a few hours from a ship) and then taking a shorter cruise either on the west or on the east - to do the other end another time (once again with a combination of staying longer somewhere). Also consider, on a cruise, you are only "seeing sights" during the day and spend your evenings watching vegas style shows or dining on a boat and you miss the experience of all these incredible destinations after dusk.

 

So in all I agree that the destinations on the 12 day cruise are wonderful (especially Istanbul ;) - but you certainly have to account that all these wonderful destinations you will be cramming into day trips from a ship (and many of them are pretty far from where you dock).

 

 

Less is more. Go spend a few days in some key areas to REALLY see them and then take a cruise to finish off and relax while taking in a few more destinations. I believe you will come out with a deeper experience this way.

[cruisychoosy]

definitely food for thought with ShellDils suggestion.

 

i looked up the itinerary for Navigator and definitely some great ports there - but I don't think you won't hit Venice or Istanbul.

So on another thought - you could do the west from Rome, then spend a couple days in Rome - then take a train to Venice for a couple days there and then do a 7 day from Venice with Istanbul on the itinerary.

 

You could do that in just a little over two weeks and you will get your few days in Rome AND extra time in Venice this way with all the ports of the 12 night and then some.

[ksps cruise fan]

Hmm rebeccalouiseagain, had not looked at holland, will have to look into it! But no Rome on itinerary? I did really want to see the colloseum....

 

seems like everyone is recommending the 12 night option...

but just some additional thoughts wondering if this changes the game - what about the 7 day trip from Rome that would also then combine Paris and London on land?

 

I really encourage you to include at least a couple of days of land visit. Time spent in Europe at night is totally different from time spent during the day. Day visitors -- and that includes cruisers -- rarely eat a leisurely dinner and take a nice evening stroll, and doing that is one of the special treats of a European vacation.

 

I'm going to be a bit bossy here: Do not add land stays in Paris and London as part of a Rome embarkation. You'll chew up too much travel time getting between each destination. While you'll check those cities off your list, I suspect the exhaustion and frustration will dilute the pleasure. I think you'll come home with a greater feeling of satisfaction if you keep your destinations much closer together and more easily reached.

 

The key to figuring out what will make you happiest is to decide what means the most to you. If you like the intersection of history and architecture/art, you'll want to include land time in places like Rome, Orvieto, Assisi, and Florence. If you like adventure travel and scenery, you'll want to head to the Dolomite Mountains or the Cinque Terre. If you like food and wine, you'll want to spend time in the small towns of Chianti or the Piedmont or Bologna. If you like ancient history, you'll want to head to Rome (and the day-trip destinations outside of Rome like Ostia Antica) and the great ruins of Herculaneum and Pompeii outside of Naples. I've even met car enthusiasts and flight enthusianists who have tailored itineries in Italy to meet their needs. For example, Maranello, a place near Modena, a name you might recognize because of balsamic vinegar, is the location of the Ferrari museum and F-1 simulator.

 

What will make you happiest?

[Girr]

If this was my first trip over I'd only take a seven day cruise and then stay the remaining days in Italy. As already mentioned a downside of cruising is (for the most part) you have less than one day in port. I can't imagine spending only a day in Rome, Florence, etc. I remember my first trip to Rome and Florence many years ago -- I only had one week to do both, and I came home totally exhausted!

[NalCruiser]

eik, I guess tides have turned where now the shorter cruise and longer land stay is recommended :)

 

Definitely a lot of food for thought though.

 

I do absolutely love the destinations of the 12 day cruise but I guess I gotta bear in mind that for many of these places, this is not going to be an in-depth way to see them and that simply docking there for a few hours will not be the same as being able to spend a few days there.

I have no idea how "rushed" that feels. On one end, a cruise is supposed to be relaxing, but on another I can sense feeling rushed to sample a lot in a short time and not do anything too deeply.

 

And missing the feel of the cities in the evenings/nights is a good point.

 

I guess I have some thinking to do!!

[rebeccalouiseagain]

I did Italy on land the first time I went. If Italy is the focus- it is best to do land. If Greece and Turkey are the focus- it is best to do it by sea. If you are trying to do London, Paris and Rome...

 

I think you can easily fly there- take the train to Paris fly to Rome and fly home from Rome. You could do this in 10 days really with no problem.

 

Really the cruise is about convenience and as I said before certain ports are best seen by ship- Barcelona, Santorini, Venice, Istanbul, Dubrovnik are some of them. If you do a cruise with all of these ports- you will have an absolutely wonderful time. This is a great cruise experience IMO.

 

If you want to see London, Paris and Rome- then you should do it by land. They aren't day trips IMO. They are too far from the ports and require at least two-three night stays.

[chipmaster]

If you have never been and maybe never get back, 12 DAY GRAND MED.

 

How can you pass up Venice, Athen, Ephesus, Istanbul, and Naples ( Pomopei and Amafli coast ? ) and a Pisa/Florence from Livorno.

 

Yes you only gate a day in each port but what crazy, hectic, busy day it was, some of the best vacation time I've ever had. Not as leisure as a land tour but so much in so little time.

 

Frankly the ship shouldn't factor, you take this cruise for the ports, IMHO!

 

Not sure what is the best forum for this question but I wanted some insight on why to choose one type of trip over another just to help make some decisions.

 

first option is to do 12 day grand mediterrenean:

NLC Spirit: venice overnight, athens, ephesus, istanbul, naples, mykonos, rome, livorno, toulon and barcelona.

Amazing itinerary for sure but also jam packed

 

 

second option is to forgo the east for now and instead do a 7 day west with some extra land time.

So to do a few days in Rome and maybe some other place and then take a 7 day from rome on NLC Epic that goes to:

livorno, naples, palma de mallorca, barcelona and marseille.

 

 

I realize this is greatly personal preferrence but wondering what would YOU choose and why, especially if one has never been to these places.

Hopefully I can one day go back and do places I missed (or do the places I did in more detail) but is there anything key to think of when considering these options?

one more thing to throw in is that the epic (shorter cruise) is the newer, nicer ship. Although of course, I'd be going there for europe.

[ShellDil]

definitely food for thought with ShellDils suggestion.

 

i looked up the itinerary for Navigator and definitely some great ports there - but I don't think you won't hit Venice or Istanbul.

So on another thought - you could do the west from Rome, then spend a couple days in Rome - then take a train to Venice for a couple days there and then do a 7 day from Venice with Istanbul on the itinerary.

 

You could do that in just a little over two weeks and you will get your few days in Rome AND extra time in Venice this way with all the ports of the 12 night and then some.

 

Had our dates been different, I think we would have done just that - the Western our of Rome and then train to Venice and do an Eastern from there. But we were able to stretch our trip to three weeks and we're ending up with some additional land time so we are able to spend a couple of days Rome and then a few in Venice in the end anyway. But it definitely would have been more convenient to sail out of Rome for one cruise and Venice on the other.

[sandij]

The 12 day looks great, amazing places, and even if you only have one day in each, it's one day in a amazing place. We usually do a 10 day and spend a couple days before in whatever city we're leaving from, we've left from London and Rome twice each, wonderful cities. I never thought we'd go back but we have and I hope we go again, remember to throw that coin in the Trevi.

[NalCruiser]

decisions decisions!!

I'm trying to price both trips and I suppose cost will put in its 2 cents as well :)

 

thank you for all this great insight!!