Which med. cruise vacation would you prefer?

[spunkarella]

Which of these vacations would you prefer for a first trip to Europe? This will be in May 2013 for 10 nights total.

Option 1:
1 night in Barcelona
3 night cruise on Norwegian Epic (this ship looks really fun):
one sea day, Naples/Capri, Rome
5 nights in & around Rome, maybe 4 Rome/1 Venice

Option 2:
2 nights in Barcelona
7 nights on RCI Splendour of the Seas (ship seems kind of meh):
Marseille, Florence or Pisa & Lucca, Rome, sea day, Split, Venice
1 night Venice

For option 1, I like spending more time in Rome and sailing on the Epic. Naples/Capri seems cool but not nearly as cool as Florence/Lucca, Split, and Venice from option 2.

DH rarely gives travel opinions, but he mentioned wanting to visit Venice so I really want to accommodate him if possible.

[basilosaurus]

I've done option 1, but with 7 days (the french ports were some of our favorites, despite initial expectations) from BCN and extra days there. It wasn't my first trip to Europe, but it was H's. It wouldn't have been my ideal pick, but we got an amazing deal (like $400pp), and a cruise was a lot easier for his leave approval.

Sailing on the epic was the worst part, tbh. There is almost no public space. On our sea day it rained, so we had nowhere we could sit and look outside since we got an inside cabin. Normally, I like inside for such a busy itinerary where we were off the ship at 7am every morning.

The other issue was the food. It just wasn't good in the MDR. Halfway through we just would get bread and cheese in port before boarding and share it with friends (that we met on the ship) who had a balcony, and then skip dinner. The specialty restaurants seemed way overpriced. We did the half price sea day lunch at the hibachi, and it was meh.

Other than that, I was actually really impressed with how much we saw despite it being a cruise. I thought H would be shortchanged by seeing the ports for only a rushed day, but it was a really good enjoyable overview.

[mudslide]

Have you considered Celebrity? They have great Europe itins.

[GilliC]

Aug 30, 2012 23:42:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

I'm probably setting myself up to get flamed big time (and I'm okay with that), but I truly do not see the appeal of cruising in Europe. In the Caribbean - fine. You go there for nice weather, you don't have high expectations for food, you can island hop and days at sea don't detract because it's just like laying on the beach.

But I do not shell out $1,200+ just to fly to Europe to eat mediocre food and spend 8 hours in Rome. These cities and towns are incredible and the best way to experience them is not to unload off a boat, be shuttled around on a guided tour, and then get back on a boat where you're served craptastic food.

Not flaming, because I'm not a fan of a lot of Mediterranean cruise itineraries, but that's a pretty blanket sweep to write off "cruising in Europe" altogether. There are some really great cruise options in Europe. Northern Europe has some fantastic cruises, because the cities are smaller and easier to explore in a single port day. Also, thanks to the deep harbors and maritime history, the port locations are often very close to the city center.

With the high cost of living, food and hotels can be prohibitively expense in that part of the world, while the per-night cruise costs are often still affordable (and you still have the chance for lunch and snacks in port). This is especially true for cruises along the Norwegian coast, where you probably couldn't bring yourself to pay for a decent meal more than once every few days and would end up settling for hot dogs and take-away sandwiches anyway.

Lastly, the geography in a lot of places like the Baltics, the Norwegian coast, and the Greek islands make it very difficult to organize a more traditional land trip. You often have to fly from place to place, because there are limited roadways and long drives, while the water routes are actually fairly efficient.

And that's not even touching on the European river cruises, which can be a great way to see certain areas.

[dulcemariamar]

I agree with GilliC. I did a Med. cruise last year with Carnival and I had a great time. I didnt go with the expectation of being able to see all the cities. I went to relax and I really enjoyed the food on the ship.

I think a Greek Island or a Northern Europe cruise is better if you really want to see the sites. Most of the ships dock actually in the city and the places are small enough that you can see most of it, during the day.

[stephanie305]

I voted for the 7-night cruise on RC. DH and I did a 7-night Mediterranean cruise three years ago. We were on the Norwegian Gem and we had a great time, I think because we had reasonable expectations for the cruise. We didn't expect gourmet meals, a huge room, or Broadway-quality entertainment. Our ports were Barcelona, Malta, Naples, Rome, Florence, and Cannes. We spent very little time on the ship because we were at the port cities all day long. My one recommendation is that you do any additional sightseeing before the cruise. We were exhausted afterward and just wanted to relax!

ETA: We slept during our entire at-sea day because we were jetlagged! I think the ship matters less on these port-intensive cruises because you spend so little time there.

[Deleted]

I picked #2 because the timing in Option 1 seems off. 1 night in Barcelona is too short. 3 nights on a cruise is probably not enough time to enjoy all the amenities, restaurants, etc. (We took a 7 night Caribbean cruise and didn't have enough time to try all of the restaurants on the ship.) 5 nights in Rome is too long imo while 1 night in Venice is not enough. If you want to see a lot of places, then I recommend about 2-4 nights in each city. Why don't you consider a 10-11 night cruise?

I also recommend Celebrity.

[basilosaurus]

Aug 30, 2012 23:42:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

But I do not shell out $1,200+ just to fly to Europe to eat mediocre food and spend 8 hours in Rome. These cities and towns are incredible and the best way to experience them is not to unload off a boat, be shuttled around on a guided tour, and then get back on a boat where you're served craptastic food.

While it's not my ideal way to travel, it's not as bad as that.

Every port we went to was 12 hours. Yeah, it's a busy day, and you don't see everything, but never once did we do a guided tour.

I think it's not bad as an overview. For some, Europe is a once in a lifetime trip, so seeing a diverse set of cities makes sense to them. For us, it was H's first of what I'm sure will be many future trips (assuming we ever live somewhere other than Asia/Pacific), so it gave him a good taste of what we'll go back to in the future.

Using Rome as your example, I'd been there twice before the cruise, but I was still able to show H the majority of the major sights during our really hectic day. We missed the vatican museum, but I'd also missed that on my first multi-day trip.

I think if you have the perspective that you'll see what you can and don't try to cram too much in, you can still get a lot out of a cruise. We had some ports (like Cannes) that were beautiful and relaxing to balance out the crazy of Rome in a day.

[gt7301b]

I would do with option 2, however, I wouldn't go back to the boat between Florence and Rome. We have done a similar cruise and we wasted a lot of time traveling between the port and Florence and Rome. I wish I had just gotten a hotel room in the second city and skipped that night on the boat.

Also if you do take a Mediterranean cruise I highly recommend Rick Steves' Mediterranean Cruise Ports. He gives you detailed instructions on how to get into Rome and Florence. (It costs ~$10 to take the train into the cities vs. more than a hundred via the cruise lines)

[fakejew]

Aug 31, 2012 6:08:51 GMT -5 GilliC said:

Aug 30, 2012 23:42:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

I'm probably setting myself up to get flamed big time (and I'm okay with that), but I truly do not see the appeal of cruising in Europe. In the Caribbean - fine. You go there for nice weather, you don't have high expectations for food, you can island hop and days at sea don't detract because it's just like laying on the beach.

But I do not shell out $1,200+ just to fly to Europe to eat mediocre food and spend 8 hours in Rome. These cities and towns are incredible and the best way to experience them is not to unload off a boat, be shuttled around on a guided tour, and then get back on a boat where you're served craptastic food.

Not flaming, because I'm not a fan of a lot of Mediterranean cruise itineraries, but that's a pretty blanket sweep to write off "cruising in Europe" altogether. There are some really great cruise options in Europe. Northern Europe has some fantastic cruises, because the cities are smaller and easier to explore in a single port day. Also, thanks to the deep harbors and maritime history, the port locations are often very close to the city center.

With the high cost of living, food and hotels can be prohibitively expense in that part of the world, while the per-night cruise costs are often still affordable (and you still have the chance for lunch and snacks in port). This is especially true for cruises along the Norwegian coast, where you probably couldn't bring yourself to pay for a decent meal more than once every few days and would end up settling for hot dogs and take-away sandwiches anyway.

Lastly, the geography in a lot of places like the Baltics, the Norwegian coast, and the Greek islands make it very difficult to organize a more traditional land trip. You often have to fly from place to place, because there are limited roadways and long drives, while the water routes are actually fairly efficient.

And that's not even touching on the European river cruises, which can be a great way to see certain areas.

Agreed. It sounds to me like sfgal doesn't really know that much about cruising europe to make the statements she's making.

[basilosaurus]

Sept 1, 2012 13:28:48 GMT -5 gt7301b said:

I would do with option 2, however, I wouldn't go back to the boat between Florence and Rome. We have done a similar cruise and we wasted a lot of time traveling between the port and Florence and Rome. I wish I had just gotten a hotel room in the second city and skipped that night on the boat.

We tried to do just that, and Italian port authorities wouldn't allow it (with advance notice, not something we tried to do once in Rome). It is possible in some cities, but it requires a different customs setup than the normal cruise passenger deals with. Plus, it may be an option in certain cities but not every day.

So, while I'd definitely second this thought, be aware it may not work out for everyone.

[GilliC]

Sept 1, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

I think I know enough about cruising to know it's not generally the best way to see Europe if your budget allows for a land vacation. I've done the suggestions above - I've been to Scandanavia and the Greek Islands - and sorry, but both of them, IMO, are better done by land than by ship. I would rather take a 2-hour flight between places than lose a day or evening cruising at sea when I can do that anywhere. I prefer to spend my time in the cities and not on a boat.

I think the Norwegian fjords are much better by boat than by land. Heck, most people on land vacations end up hopping on a ferry, kayak, or sightseeing boat once they reach the fjords anyway!

And don't forget that a 2-hour flight also requires an hour and a half checkin/security time, and in much of Scandinavia a 30-90 minute bus or train ride to/from the airport. So instead of sailing overnight, you're spending 4-6 hours of a day in transit.

And as for cost, sure "if you can afford it" is a nice caveat, but the truth is that with $200/night for a 2-star hotel, $45 for a pizza, and $12 for a glass of wine, many people can't afford a land vacation in Scandinavia.

Heck, I live here, and it was cheaper to fly to the UK and take a cruise on the QE2 from there than to do the same trip from here. And I'm sorry, but Cunard's food is not bad. I doubt you'll find something better in a port like Flåm, and in the places you can, you'd have to pay well over $40/plate.

[fakejew]

Sept 1, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

Sept 1, 2012 14:06:15 GMT -5 fakejew said:

Agreed. It sounds to me like sfgal doesn't really know that much about cruising europe to make the statements she's making.

I think I know enough about cruising to know it's not generally the best way to see Europe if your budget allows for a land vacation. I've done the suggestions above - I've been to Scandanavia and the Greek Islands - and sorry, but both of them, IMO, are better done by land than by ship. I would rather take a 2-hour flight between places than lose a day or evening cruising at sea when I can do that anywhere. I prefer to spend my time in the cities and not on a boat.

Plus, the food on most cruise ships is terrible (unless you're going really high-end) compared to what you'll get at restaurants in Europe, and since it's built into your cost a lot of people eat it just because they already paid for it. I'd much rather eat nice meals on land than sub-par meals on a boat. If you're on a budget then I guess that's your option, but if you can afford to do a land tour, I find it to be better.

1. right, and not everyone can or chooses to afford a land vacation.

2. why would you assume they don't eat off the ship? I've taken cruises in the past that I've simply considered a floating hotel and rarely ate on the ship (mostly just breakfast) and I know I'm not the only one who has done it.

I'm sorry but I don't have much time or patience for your travel snobbery. Everyone is limited by budget and time. We make the best choices we can with those limitations. Why that isn't good enough for some I'll never understand.

[scout8]

For these locations, I don't think I would do a cruise. I would rather get around by land. Not saying that I wouldn't do a cruise in Europe, but for these destinations, a cruise would not be my first choice. If you are going to do a cruise, then I would probably do the 7 day because I loved Split.

[mudslide]

Sept 1, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -5 @sfgal530 said:

Sept 1, 2012 14:06:15 GMT -5 fakejew said:

Agreed. It sounds to me like sfgal doesn't really know that much about cruising europe to make the statements she's making.

I think I know enough about cruising to know it's not generally the best way to see Europe if your budget allows for a land vacation. I've done the suggestions above - I've been to Scandanavia and the Greek Islands - and sorry, but both of them, IMO, are better done by land than by ship. I would rather take a 2-hour flight between places than lose a day or evening cruising at sea when I can do that anywhere. I prefer to spend my time in the cities and not on a boat.

Plus, the food on most cruise ships is terrible (unless you're going really high-end) compared to what you'll get at restaurants in Europe, and since it's built into your cost a lot of people eat it just because they already paid for it. I'd much rather eat nice meals on land than sub-par meals on a boat. If you're on a budget then I guess that's your option, but if you can afford to do a land tour, I find it to be better.

Sf, the truth is that everyone has different travel styles they prefer and different travel needs. What works for some people doesn't work for others. Travel is a very individual experience and there is no right or wrong way to do it. What you're describing may be the only way to do it right in your opinion. But to other people, it may sound like a personal hell. And visa versa.

[fakejew]

Sept 1, 2012 21:09:02 GMT -5 kooshball said:

I wouldn't do a cruise. You would hardly get to see anything with that short of time in each city.

LOL at "I don't have time or patience for your travel snobbery" hahah goodness. I feel the same way when people preach on about how awesome cruises are.

Wait, what? Can you elaborate?

[spunkarella]

Thanks for the replies! We definitely plan to take the "floating hotel" approach and don't plan to take any of the cruise line's excursions.

The more I think about it, the more I think a cruise will be right for us for this trip. I understand that it's not everyone's jam, and I really do appreciate the input.

I agree x1000 that Rome will be getting short-changed on this trip. But I don't plan to run around like a crazy person trying to check off every sight in Rome in a few hours. There are just some things that we will not get to see this time, and I'm fine with that.

I think we will have sufficient time to get a good taste of the rest of the ports, especially if we do Pisa & Lucca, which are often recommended as a day trip anyway, rather than Florence.

I did look at Celebrity, but the cruises were either over-budget or didn't work with our schedules/vacation time.

[basilosaurus]

If you do decide to do the cruise, come back and I'll give suggestions for in-a-day itineraries as we had the same approach. One poster on cruisecritic put together a fantastic map for Rome.

We did go primarily to Florence, but because you have to stop in Pisa on the way back anyway, we just cabbed to the tower, took some pics, and came back for the next train. I don't think that town is worth an all day excursion.

My only experience in Lucca was an awesome cooking class, so I can't help with sights there

[spunkarella]

Tell me about this cooking class in Lucca!

When I originally started planning this as a land vacation, I really wanted to do a cooking class in Rome. I figured the cruise would (and still may) make that impossible.

How long was it, and how advanced? I'm just looking for something pretty basic, like maybe a few hours making and eating homemade pasta.

[basilosaurus]

It was 7 or 8 years ago, so details on the chef's name and what I paid may be hard to track down (and may have changed), but it was so much fun.

It was in a hotel, and I actually came into town the night before since it was a morning class. The chef called my room and invited me down to the kitchen where he was doing a class just for Italian couples. I couldn't really communicate with them well, but the chef and his Japanese assistant spoke English, so we got along.

Then, the next morning the chef called me up and invited me to the market with him. I should mention, I was the only single day student since I was there in March. Apparently that's when he does long term classes, whereas summer I think he caters more to tourists.

The hilarious part was who this long term class was for. Remember I mentioned the Japanese assistant? She wasn't a cook. She was a translator. The class was full of Japanese students who came to Italy specifically for this class. There were also a couple random Italian guys, too. So that was fun communication. None of the Italians I could speak with understood why an American would learn Italian cooking if I had no Italian family until I remembered I had an Italian step-grandfather I never met.

I think we finished around 2 or 3, so doable from a cruise. They drove me to the train station, too.

[basilosaurus]

Oh, and it was fairly advanced due to the people training to be professionals, but I was encouraged to jump in anywhere I wanted, and everyone helped me. I learned to make cannoli, ravioli, how to properly dice an onion (who knew I'd done it wrong all my early 20s?). We made an amazing pasta ala norma which I hadn't even heard of. And then there was some rolled fish sicilian course. I can't even remember the rest, although I do have pictures somewhere.

Obviously, since I technically had 2 classes, I participated in more dishes. If you're in a tourist class I would imagine it is more direct instruction. With me, it was almost like I was an intern for a day.