Europe via land or sea?

[kidrn65]

My husband and I are planning to take my son and his best friend to Europe for a graduation present in June 2010. None of us have ever been to Europe before. We have 2+ weeks for this trip. It seems a cruise would be the best way to see the most places in that time frame. Europe via land tour versus a cruise, which is the better way to go?

 

Thanks in advance for your input and help!

 

Monica

[julieanne]

It's a great way to see a little bit of everything. However, Europe is very intense and there are so many places to see that it would be hard to make that recommendation for you! We have done a few transatlantics (Med cruises too) with a few days at the end. I would have liked to have some extra days in Rome, yet I didn't care for Barcelona, Spain as much. I would think Greece would be great to spend extra time in as well. Doing the research prior to the trip will help a lot. Make a list of what you absolutely must see and how you will get there. You will get lots of great tour tips on the ports boards. If you feel the time in port will not allow you to see the sites you would like, then perhaps a land based tour/vacation pkg would be better :).

[ab0si]

It depends on your objectives.

 

If your intent is "to see the most places in that time frame" and such places are reasonably close to the sea, cruising is better. You don't have to pack/unpack, etc.

 

If your intent is to actually SEE a few places, a land vacation is better.

 

A land tour via bus strikes me as the worst of both .. you don't spend enough time any place to actually see it but you get to repack a lot. :)

[thinfool]

My husband and I are planning to take my son and his best friend to Europe for a graduation present in June 2010. None of us have ever been to Europe before. We have 2+ weeks for this trip. It seems a cruise would be the best way to see the most places in that time frame. Europe via land tour versus a cruise, which is the better way to go?

 

Thanks in advance for your input and help!

 

Monica

 

 

You will likely control your costs better on a ship. You don't have to worry about getting to your next stop (the Captain does). You will have familiar food to choose from. You will have good entertainment in the evening. And an "English" environment if you worry about language challenges in a foreign country.

 

Otoh, traveling Europe by train is a wonderful adventure. As a suggestion, fly to Venice and explore on your own for a day or two, train to Florence for another day and then train to Civitavecchia and board a ship for 10-12 nights. Rome will doubtless find it's way into this itinerary as well.

[fideauxdon]

It depends on your objectives.

A land tour via bus strikes me as the worst of both .. you don't spend enough time any place to actually see it but you get to repack a lot. :)

 

This is not necessarily true. If you take one of the highly advertised "8 Countries in ten days" tours, you're correct, but there are alternatives. We booked three tours with a large travel company that explored one European country in depth. The tours of France and Italy were 17 day tours, and the Switzerland tour was a 14 day tour. Just about all of the overnight stop were for two or three nights, the distances between stops were short, and the "wake up" times were reasonable.

[cruisemom42]

I'm planning to take my DS on a graduation Med cruise in 2010 also. It's tough to give advice as everyone is different. For us it's a cruise THIS time -- DS has traveled with me already to some European destinations (Rome, London.....places you just can't see in a day). We are looking for a cruise to hit some highlights and places that ARE a little easier to do in a day; for example Athens is high on his list, and we want a cruise that either begins or ends in Venice (2 days there is probably enough). Many Greek isles are easily done in a day, as is Kusadasi/Ephesus.

 

Also, it's a good idea to keep in mind your son's wishes. Mine really enjoys cruising and having a "home base". We did the Baltics this way and I think it worked well. However, your son and his friend may be more into seeing what the evening activities are -- something you rarely get a chance to do on a cruise.

[Cuizer2]

My husband and I are planning to take my son and his best friend to Europe for a graduation present in June 2010. None of us have ever been to Europe before. We have 2+ weeks for this trip. It seems a cruise would be the best way to see the most places in that time frame. Europe via land tour versus a cruise, which is the better way to go?

 

Thanks in advance for your input and help!

 

Monica

 

I've thought about this. Packing and unpacking everyday, sitting in a bus, following someone else's schedule ... This does not sound like fun to me.

 

On the ship you will spend less time in each city. That is the trade off. On the other hand, you don't have to pack and unpack everyday. Your bus time is limited to tours you choose, not as transportation between several cities and you get to choose your own schedule.

 

I'll take the ship. If there is a city I want to spend more time in, I'll go back.

[SheilaNC]

For a first trip, I'd think about the time lost checking in and out of hotels and getting transportation to the next stop. Cruising allows the boys to enjoy the ship on sea days, includes all meals with lots of choices for young adult appetites and allows for 'a taste' of many places to help to decide which you'd like to visit again for a longer period of time. Do take into account the expense of port excursions (allow some, like Venice, Barcelona, Dubrovnik and Santorini (to name a few) can easily be done 'on your own'. One thing that we do prior to traveling with our grandsons is to assign them the task of researching the places to be visited so that they can contribute to what we do while there. What a lovely graduation present (for all of you) :)

[ab0si]

This is not necessarily true. If you take one of the highly advertised "8 Countries in ten days" tours, you're correct, but there are alternatives. We booked three tours with a large travel company that explored one European country in depth. The tours of France and Italy were 17 day tours, and the Switzerland tour was a 14 day tour. Just about all of the overnight stop were for two or three nights, the distances between stops were short, and the "wake up" times were reasonable.

 

It is all a matter of perspective and taste.

 

I can't imagine "doing" France and Italy in only 17 days. 17 days in Northern Tuscany is more my style. Of course, this is no way makes me right or you wrong.

[agabbymama]

Land vacations are going to take longer, just for the mere fact of getting from one place to another. You will be riding the bus or train during the day, and your time at each stop is still going to be limited. You will stop at night at a hotel to sleep.

 

On a cruise, your time in each stop may be limited to a day, but you will travel the distance to the next stop at night while you are sleeping. You will awake to a new port.

 

I have done both. My husband and I did 30 days in Italy in '98 (before the EURO). We had a fantastic time, and stayed usually at least 2 nights in a location, some we stayed 4 or 5 nights. But prices were much better then, I don't think we paid over $50 per night for any hotel stay. Not easy to find these days.

 

The cruise is certainly much more convenient, and with the EURO vs US$ exchange rate, the cruise (paid for in US$) with the food, lodging already included is going to be more economical. You will still have a few days on land (pre-cruise and post-cruise) that will add some $$$ to the total cost.

 

With only two weeks for the trip, I'd definitely go with the cruise. If you see an area you really like, you could always return to that area at a later date. A 12 day cruise with 2 nights pre-cruise and 2 nights post-cruise is going to be about all the time you have.

 

Include everyone in the planning, select a cruise that goes to the ports you are interested in. You can even go to the cruiseline websites to see what tours are offered, and what if anything interests you.

 

Have fun planning, then taking your trip!

[eh2zed]

My husband and I are planning to take my son and his best friend to Europe for a graduation present in June 2010. None of us have ever been to Europe before. We have 2+ weeks for this trip. It seems a cruise would be the best way to see the most places in that time frame. Europe via land tour versus a cruise, which is the better way to go?

 

Thanks in advance for your input and help!

 

Monica

When we go to Europe we usually do cruise plus a pre and post cruise stay. For instance when we went on our Baltic cruise we precruised in Paris and took the train to Copenhagen to start the cruise. On another we started in Frankfurt and worked our way to Rome for the cruise. The cruise ended in London where we stayed for 3 nights. Just another thought. But definitely a cruise is a great way to see a number of countries.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

we did carnival out of rome , and spent 3 days in rome before