Silly request-Need help determining best European cruise

[mcbain]

My wife and I are looking into booking a summertime European cruise for (hopefully) next year. Never been there but for some odd reason, I am enamored more with Baltic cruises probably due to reading too many spy novels whereas I think too much Lifetime has my wife believing Greece and France are the only places where things are happening. So this has prompted some silly questions(SQ) based on no facts that maybe someone can help answer...

 

SQ 1 - Northern European cruises, namely those covering Copenhagen, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, etc. are better than other European cruises because the summer weather is cooler(our preference anyway) and less humid than say Greece or Italy tours. Fact or fiction?

 

SQ2 - Northern European cruises are better because the countries visited are more friendly towards us Americans. T or F?

 

SQ3 - You will only enjoy Northern Europe if you are enamored with Russian history. I see most 10 day cruises, our preference, stay in St. Petersburg for like 2 or 3 days. My wife and I like strolling in cities and can take a museum once in awhile but three days gives me the idea the buildings will all start to look the same. So am I thinking oddly and it is wacko to assume nature dominates the Med. cruises, buildings the Baltic?

 

SQ4 - For Northern Europe, the best way to see it is to dispense with the excursions and just stroll around town. For the Alaskan cruise, not sure how someone could enjoy it to the max WITHOUT excursions. So for two European "virgins," is one way better than the other?

 

I thank you all for even getting to this point in the post and any random thoughts will be much appreciated.

[bigwally]

1) Fact. Some more southernly European cities can be really opressive in the late spring, summer, and early fall. Compare against temps in the Baltics that rarely get beyond the mid to high 70s.

 

2) Never had a problem in any European city. People seem to be the same the world over - you run into some jerks (who would be jerks no matter what nationality you were) but most are nice and friendly. Of course I'm British, but Mrs. Bigwally is American and I don't really sound like I'm not anymore.

 

3) Generally the Russian, Scandanavian, and Germanic cultures are what you'll be exposed to on most Baltic itineraries. I think you'll see an adequate mix of different ones.

 

4) Remember that for St. Petersburg you'll need a visa and a more than casual aquantance with the Russian language to go your own way. It would be best to book a private or ship's tour for this port. The others I'd say you could do your own thing quite readily. If you are putting in at a German port for Berlin, because of the distances involved, a tour might be the better option unless you are quite adventurous.

[mcbain]

Thanks for the tips and info, bigwally.

My perception about the "anti-USA" is based on a friend whose business travels took him to Italy, France and the Baltic countries. Said in the first two, he saw anti-American graffitti with a couple of Swastika's thrown in the mix whereas he found the Baltic countries to be "cleaner" and, as you mentioned in regards to the language, it was easier for him to get around Denmark and Sweden limited to English. Of course, I agree you could probably find graffitti anywhere if you looked enough!! :)

[jstducky]

 

SQ 1 - Northern European cruises, namely those covering Copenhagen, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, etc. are better than other European cruises because the summer weather is cooler(our preference anyway) and less humid than say Greece or Italy tours. Fact or fiction?

 

SQ2 - Northern European cruises are better because the countries visited are more friendly towards us Americans. T or F?

 

SQ3 - You will only enjoy Northern Europe if you are enamored with Russian history. I see most 10 day cruises, our preference, stay in St. Petersburg for like 2 or 3 days. My wife and I like strolling in cities and can take a museum once in awhile but three days gives me the idea the buildings will all start to look the same. So am I thinking oddly and it is wacko to assume nature dominates the Med. cruises, buildings the Baltic?

 

SQ4 - For Northern Europe, the best way to see it is to dispense with the excursions and just stroll around town. For the Alaskan cruise, not sure how someone could enjoy it to the max WITHOUT excursions. So for two European "virgins," is one way better than the other?

 

I thank you all for even getting to this point in the post and any random thoughts will be much appreciated.

 

 

SQ1- yes, the temperature is considerably cooler. but that's not to say that the Baltics is cold, but it can be cold. when I went to the med, never did I need a sweater or a jacket. in the baltics I needed at least a sweatshirt every day. the temps are cooler and definitely rainer. I would say that on my Baltics cruise in July 2007 the average temp was probably around the high 60s/low 70s. In July 2006 on my Med cruise, the temps averaged high 80s/low 90s every day.

 

SQ2 - I personally think that's a sterotype. I find Europeans to be extremely friendly. On 3 cruise in 3 years to Europe and a land tour thrown in there, I have never experienced anti-american behavior. Of course, I have heard about it from others though. remember, most of the places you go to will be heavily populated tourist areas.. the people there, they want to show you their culture and they want your tourist dollars. they probably will not openly discriminate against you because you are an american. i think most people tend to find northern europe friendly due to the fact that there is a lot less of a language barrier. in northern europe almost everyone speaks a great deal of english, so being understood is easy. in the med, its hit or miss as far as language, so being understood could be more difficult which leads to more frustration on the part of the local and the tourist

 

SQ3 - No. you don't need to be enamored with Russian history to enjoy the baltics. the baltic have a great deal of history, and yeah 2 days in St. Pete gives you a good idea of its history, but you don't need to go in with knowledge of the history of the region. it's history in itself to be traveling to a part of the world once hidden to westerners behind the iron curtain. you get the same feeling when you visit tallinn. then visiting berlin is an experience in and of itself with the wall, and checkpoint charlie, etc. but its a mistake to say that the med is all nature and the baltics is all buildings. the med is a lot of history, and a lot of ruins. the baltics has some incredibly scenery, for example sailing through the stockholm archipelago is one of the most picturesque experiences ever. but generally speaking, the med is beach, and sun and sand with incredible views and historic buildings dominated by seeing roman ruins. the baltics is generally more about art, architecture. but pigeon-holing these destinations like that does both regions a terrible diservice.

 

SQ4 - shore excursions in the baltics... that's hard to say. in st. petersburg, you'd never get the full picture of the city without a shore excursion, be that private or through the ship. and with the visa requirements, i wouldn't recommend trying to do it on your own. berlin is a 3 hour train ride, or 2 hour drive from the port, so you'd probably be best taking an excursion. tallinn is a walkable city where an excursion is not necessary. with stockholm and helsinki those are both walkable cities as well where excursions are not necessary. If you're saying that Alaskan cruising excursions are necessary to enjoy it to the max due to the train rides, glacier flightseeing, dog sledding, bear watching, whale watching, etc. then in that same vain, the Baltics is not like that. it can easily be enjoyed and appreciated without too many shore excursions and yet you wouldn't feel like you didn't experience the real Baltics.

 

I hope this helps. I LOVED LOVED LOVED the Baltics. But as a region, it is VERY DIFFERENT from the Med. There are tons and tons of places in the Med to see and no 2 cruises are the same. In the Baltics, there are a few key cities to go to and a few lesser cities you could visit, but it's not as expansive as the Med.

 

After having done a Med, Baltics and British Isles cruise, this was my conclusion... I could do the Med again in a heartbeat (and I am booked on my second Med cruise for next summer), I could do the Baltics again in a few years once some time has passed, the British Isles I liked and I am glad I went, but it will probably be awhile before I go back again.

 

Having said that, my favorite European cruise cities in order are:

1) Santorini (Med)

2) Helsinki (Baltics)

3) Stockholm (Baltics)

4) Edinburgh (British Isles)

5) Rome (Med)

 

Good luck in planning!

[jstducky]

Thanks for the tips and info, bigwally.

My perception about the "anti-USA" is based on a friend whose business travels took him to Italy, France and the Baltic countries. Said in the first two, he saw anti-American graffitti with a couple of Swastika's thrown in the mix whereas he found the Baltic countries to be "cleaner"

 

Here is another general chracteristic that distinguishes the baltics from the med...

 

The Baltics are made up of much richer nations than the Med. In the Baltics you've got Finland and Sweden who are amongst the top 10, if not top 5 of highest standard of living countries. The cities you will see in the Baltics are generally spotlessly clean and beautiful to the eye.

 

In the Med, the nations are not quite as wealthy, some countries have suffered after having to switch from local currency to the Euro, their is higher unemployment, higher crime and therefore that leads to more graphitti, more propoganda, etc. But that in and of itself kind of gives the Med its character as well.

[mcbain]

thanks, jstducky. Based on your logo, seems like the only ancient cultures you'll be worried about this weekend is that of the Mormons and the Trojans! :D

[jstducky]

thanks, jstducky. Based on your logo, seems like the only ancient cultures you'll be worried about this weekend is that of the Mormons and the Trojans! :D

 

haha! I am a proud UCLA Alumus!

 

Go Bruins!

 

Go Ohio State!

 

Good luck in the planning. Planning is half the fun. And don't ever think your questions are silly. Everyone goes through the same questions you have verbalized, some are just too afraid to ask and find out!

[RachelG]

Q1: Definitely is warmer in southern Europe than northern, so if heat is a problem, you would be better off going to northern Europe in the middle of summer and saving southern for spring or fall. BUT it can get a little warm in northern Europe, and they pretty much don't have air conditioning. It was in the 80's one of our days in Copenhagen. We are used to temps way hotter than that, so it was fine for us, but some might be bothered.

Q2: I don't think there is any difference between southern and northern Europe in terms of friendliness to Americans. As someone else pointed out, this may just be perceived because more people in countries like Sweden and Denmark speak English well.

Q3: There is lots more to northern Europe than Russian history. We hiked in Sweden. There is beautiful scenery all over the place. But there is a whole lot of interesting history that we weren't all that familiar with and were interested in learning (Vasa museum in Stockholm, Occupation museum in Tallinn, resistance museum in Copenhagen, to name a few).

Q4: Most towns and cities in both northern and southern Europe are really easy to do on your own. We did a total of 1 ship's excursion per cruise on each of our Baltic, southern Europe and Greek isles cruises. It is just really easy to do on your own in most places. Now in St Petersburg, we did hire a guide because of the visa issue.

[MercedMike]

My wife and I are looking into booking a summertime European cruise for (hopefully) next year. Never been there but for some odd reason, I am enamored more with Baltic cruises probably due to reading too many spy novels whereas I think too much Lifetime has my wife believing Greece and France are the only places where things are happening. So this has prompted some silly questions(SQ) based on no facts that maybe someone can help answer...

 

SQ 1 - Northern European cruises, namely those covering Copenhagen, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, etc. are better than other European cruises because the summer weather is cooler(our preference anyway) and less humid than say Greece or Italy tours. Fact or fiction?

 

SQ2 - Northern European cruises are better because the countries visited are more friendly towards us Americans. T or F?

 

SQ3 - You will only enjoy Northern Europe if you are enamored with Russian history. I see most 10 day cruises, our preference, stay in St. Petersburg for like 2 or 3 days. My wife and I like strolling in cities and can take a museum once in awhile but three days gives me the idea the buildings will all start to look the same. So am I thinking oddly and it is wacko to assume nature dominates the Med. cruises, buildings the Baltic?

 

SQ4 - For Northern Europe, the best way to see it is to dispense with the excursions and just stroll around town. For the Alaskan cruise, not sure how someone could enjoy it to the max WITHOUT excursions. So for two European "virgins," is one way better than the other?

 

I thank you all for even getting to this point in the post and any random thoughts will be much appreciated.

 

OK, I'll add my not-so-humble opinions:

 

SQ1 -- The Baltic, in general, will definitely be cooler than the Med. Is this an advantage? Depends on your point of view, doesn't it. You aren't going to do much sun bathing or lounging around the pool on a Baltic trip. In the Med you can get plenty of sun time and beaches if that is what you like. The Med in October or November can be nice and cool.

 

SQ2- As a tourist carrying American $ you are going to find everyone friendly!

 

SQ3- St Petersburg is a highlight of any Baltic cruise, definitely! However in two days there you can only scratch the surface. The days of the Tsara are definitely some of the most important attractions but there are many other things to see and do. The other Baltic ports have a great variety of attractions from Tivoli in Copenhagen to the concentration camp at Gdansk. I am not quite sure what you mean by "nature" in the Med -- beaches, certainly, but not much else of "natrure". You get a lot of ancient history in the Med, such as Rome, Athens, Ephesus and so on, and more modern history in places like Venice.

 

SQ4 - We very seldom, on any cruise, just stroll around town. In almost every port there are some special attractions that we want to see. Either a ship's excursion or an independent guide are our usual choices, rarely a local taxi driver. You definitely do NOT want to do St. Petersburg without a guide. Otherwise, either the Baltic or the Med is possible to just stroll, but you would miss a lot.

 

Check out our reviews and pics of a Baltic cruise and two Med cruises at

http://www.bully4.us/cruising.html

 

Have a GREAT cruise!

[mcbain]

Merced Mike, you mentioned Gdansk so I have yet another question.....

Looking at Emeral Princess Baltic cruise shore excursions, I see no tours thru them for the Stuthoff concentration camp during the stop in Gdansk. Just curious if you know of an independent company or used one yourself. One of the websites I happened upon says it is "up to 10 hours" for the tour but the stopover is listed as only 9AM-6PM. No rush, of course, but any details you can provide will be much appreciated.

[roysmith99]

MMMMM, OK so I'll be shot down for saying this, but just make a list of the places and things you want to do and see, then priortise and rate each enrtry then search for the best cruise.

[RachelG]

MMMMM, OK so I'll be shot down for saying this, but just make a list of the places and things you want to do and see, then priortise and rate each enrtry then search for the best cruise.

 

 

Oh, gee, Roy, that is just way too sensible.

[mcbain]

Rachel and roysmith,

My initial post asked some questions which I stated were nothing more than perceptions about Northern Europe. In return, others kindly shared their experiences and opinions about the region; innocent "chit-chat" if you will.

 

I do not see your last two posts(at least the last two as I type this) as a response to the questions nor the above mentioned "chit-chat." My perception is your words are personal opinions about the nature of the post itself and how you would go about planning your own cruise. They are not experiences, facts, or even "tips" which, up to now, are the only types of replies I have gotten on these boards.

 

It is very kind of you taking the time to read my ramblings. However, going forward, I request that if you can offer a true response to one of my posts, then please so do with as much detail as you can. On the other hand, if you believe my topic is not "sensible," kindly refrain from replying. Thank you.

[RachelG]

Mcbain, if you will look further up in the posts, you will see that I did offer a very sincere response to your question. I have travelled extensively in Europe and think I gave a balanced answer.

My response was to Roy and was meant to be a sarcastic response to him. I am sorry if you perceived it otherwise.

[mcbain]

Rachel, sorry, looks like I'm guilty of getting caught up in one of the "internet-age-message-board" pitfalls where a few words can sometimes be interpreted in ways other than how they were meant. Thanks for clarifying. :)

[bigwally]

Actually (noting that I also, in fact, gave a sincere response to the initial question), I don't think Roysmith's suggestion is way far out in left field.

 

When we sat down to plan our Northern Europe cruise, we started with some very general notions of what we might be looking for. We either wanted to do a heavy Norway fjords itinerary, with a smattering of UK ports, or we wanted to do a true and full Baltic itinerary. The latter won out.

 

So we then started deleting options based on the following criteria:

 

1) We wanted the cruise to be at least 10 nights.

2) We wanted to visit Amsterdam.

3) We wanted to visit Oslo.

4) We wanted to visit Berlin.

5) We wanted to visit St. Petersburg (and it would be highly desirable to at least have an overnight stay).

6) We wanted to depart from a UK port.

7) We would be inclined more towards a smaller ship.

8) Our preference would be RCCL or Celebrity because the next cruise would take us up a level in Captain's Club and/or Crown and Anchor.

9) It would be great to find a really good deal.

 

So from about a dozen initial selections, we came down to three finalists. One was ommited because it didn't visit Berlin, and one was ommitted because I couldn't find any kind of deal. The remaining one, HAL Rotterdam, did get a ding for not sailing from a British port and wouldn't help us with the afore mentioned affinity programmes, but ticked absolutely all the boxes otherwise.

 

So there we have it. All booked and set for HAL Rotterdam come June next year.

[roysmith99]

I thank you all for even getting to this point in the post and any random thoughts will be much appreciated.

 

I guess you were not really interested in "random thoughts then".

 

Have no fear, this is one seasoned cruiser and cruise critic member that will never waste your time again.