Do you feel you see enough of a country on a multi-country tour?

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, pacruise804 said:

 

How much of a visit makes it legitimate to say you "went to ..."? 

 

For cruises I tend to use the phrase "we stopped at" whatever port but that we "went" on a cruise, probably because I view the cruise as the vacation and the itinerary a plan but not guaranteed.

 

My family spent a week in Niagara Falls, ON this summer and visited some local eateries as well as the Falls, but I feel I got more of a sense of Canada during port days in Saint John and Halifax.

 

We spent some time at Niagara Falls a few years back.  It was more enjoyable than I would have thought.  Drove from there up through Montreal and then on to Quebec City to pick up a cruise.  We were a group in a couple of mini van rentals tooling along in caravan mode.  Lol. 

 

Even though I don't claim to have what some would call sufficient knowledge of Canada, I can claim that I enjoyed the trip a lot.  

[DarrenM]

On 2/27/2020 at 7:38 AM, Sandra1616 said:

Hi there,

I would like to ask those whom have already been on a cruise, if they felt they saw enough of the countries they visited in a multi country cruise? Have any of you tried cruises + tours? Thanks, Sandra

Yes you do. As you know exactly how much you are going to have  in each port. Surely the main part of a cruise holiday is the cruise right? So you book the cruise and your itinerary so know exactly what you will get. A taster.

 

Has anyone ever been on a cruise and then complained they didnt get to see a lot of the country of the port they were visiting? Really?

 

I walked around Naples. Therefore I have been to Italy. I didnt see Rome. But if I had been to Rome I wouldnt have got to Milan. Where do you draw the line?

 

I set foot in Naples therefore I have  been to Italy.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by DarrenM

[sanger727]

18 hours ago, cruizergal70 said:

Maybe the aim isn't to be sufficiently knowledgeable  in a single visit. 

 

One of my future goals is to see the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil. I'm going to go, visit the statue, and then come home within 24 hrs. Sure, Brazil has much more to offer but my goal isn't to see it all.

I can’t relate to this. I do get the idea of there bring one attraction you want to see in a country (for me it would be machu pichu in Peru). But I couldn’t justify the cost and time commitment to travel that far for 24 hours. We do plan on seeing machu pichu sometime but will combine the trip with something else (probably Galapagos). It’s like, I would love to see the Taj Mahal; but I don’t really have a desire to go to india. I can’t see any scenario where it would be worthwhile for me to fly there just for that snd turn around and come home. That’s when a cruise would come in handy. To have a brief stop off at one location and then move on to others of interest.

[ontheweb]

I don't understand all the angst over did I really experience the whole country. Why can't you just enjoy what you did that day off the ship?

 

An example, on our very first ever port DW (an art teacher) and I went to the Matisse and Chagall museums in Nice. She then went for a swim in the Mediterranean. I was left to watch our stuff, but she plopped our stuff down right behind several topless French women. Did we get to experience all of France? Of course not, but it was a great day, a real pleasure.

 

We have been back to France both on a cruise and on a land trip to Paris, but that does not mean that that first day was in and of itself worthwhile even if we did not get back to France.

[pacruise804]

15 hours ago, ducklite said:

Having driven the Trans-Canada highway from Montreal to Vancouver, and also spent enough time in cities not on the Highway such as Edmonton, Jasper, Saskatoon, and Toronto, that I have a Canadian Social Insurance card, I can assure you that those two cities aren't indicative of Canada as a whole. 🙂 

 

And I suspect that Vancouver and Toronto are very different than the Northwest Territories 😉 

 

14 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

I see you’re contradicting everyone who thinks, like me, that a cruise is not sufficient to get to know a place. You need to just accept that you have your opinion and others have theirs. 

 

Actually, I'm arguing that not only isn't a cruise not sufficient enough to know a country a land visit isn't enough either.  Both can be very enjoyable vacations though as long as the traveler recognizes the limitations.

[K32682]

23 hours ago, cruizergal70 said:

Maybe the aim isn't to be sufficiently knowledgeable  in a single visit. 

 

One of my future goals is to see the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil. I'm going to go, visit the statue, and then come home within 24 hrs. Sure, Brazil has much more to offer but my goal isn't to see it all.

 

If you're going with to see a specific thing have no interest in in anything else then a brief cruise stop makes sense. 

 

If an individual thinks they see "enough" of a place on a cruise visit then good for them.  There are places in the world I've seen "enough" of simply by changing planes at the airport.    

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I don't understand all the angst over did I really experience the whole country. Why can't you just enjoy what you did that day off the ship?

 

An example, on our very first ever port DW (an art teacher) and I went to the Matisse and Chagall museums in Nice. She then went for a swim in the Mediterranean. I was left to watch our stuff, but she plopped our stuff down right behind several topless French women. Did we get to experience all of France? Of course not, but it was a great day, a real pleasure.

 

We have been back to France both on a cruise and on a land trip to Paris, but that does not mean that that first day was in and of itself worthwhile even if we did not get back to France.

 

I agree with this. I think one of the mistakes people make is trying to see "everything" in an 8 hour cruise stop. It isn't going to happen. Find something nice to do and enjoy your day. 

 

I interpreted the question of the original post as whether a cruise ship stop was sufficient for a one and done, never to return. For me, in some places yes, in many places no. We did a italian/greek island cruise a few years ago. We saw the acropolis in Athens which was something I really wanted to see and now I have no real desire to return to Athens. Now we were also exposed to some gorgeous islands  - Santorini, Rhodes, Capri, that I would love to go back to and prior to this cruise had never given a thought to.

[Sandra1616]

Hi everyone,

 

As the OP,  I was trying to ask,  the readers, if being on a cruise gave them a strong sense of the countries they visited in multi country tours.  Replies said that cruises were a choice of travel that they got to visit places they  specifically wanted to visit  and mentioned places where artists works were shown, statues,  museums and historic sites. 

 

Repliers tended to say getting to know a  country very well,  especially farther inland  would require much longer periods of time than usual for a cruise including some areas where cruise ships could not go to. 

 

Some repliers said they added pre and post travel onto their cruise tours to get to know the country better.  Some repliers rented cars, took river cruises, travelled  on the railways, stayed at hotels and more.

 

Sa dra

 

A few said Caribbean islands were the exception by cruises providing enough time  to know.

[ducklite]

On 3/3/2020 at 9:51 AM, pacruise804 said:

 

And I suspect that Vancouver and Toronto are very different than the Northwest Territories 😉 

However the Territories are not all that unlike Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the eastern side of Alberta.

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, Sandra1616 said:

Hi everyone,

 

As the OP,  I was trying to ask,  the readers, if being on a cruise gave them a strong sense of the countries they visited in multi country tours.  Replies said that cruises were a choice of travel that they got to visit places they  specifically wanted to visit  and mentioned places where artists works were shown, statues,  museums and historic sites. 

 

Repliers tended to say getting to know a  country very well,  especially farther inland  would require much longer periods of time than usual for a cruise including some areas where cruise ships could not go to. 

 

Some repliers said they added pre and post travel onto their cruise tours to get to know the country better.  Some repliers rented cars, took river cruises, travelled  on the railways, stayed at hotels and more.

 

Sa dra

 

A few said Caribbean islands were the exception by cruises providing enough time  to know.

 

Thanks Sandra, it sure has been a good topic for discussion.  I think that another factor voiced by some (OK, maybe just me, haha) is that getting to know a country is not part of the objective.  For me sometimes history of the place comes into play and sometimes it is just about hanging out and enjoying the place.   

 

Anyway, again thanks for starting a good discussion.