Mediterranean Cruise or Land Tour of Europe?

[Shanti]

I've got our 2019 Mediterranean cruise paid in full, but now I'm having second thoughts. Maybe we should ditch the cruise and just tour Europe on land?

To provide context, this will be a trip for my 14 year-old son and me. He hasn't been to Europe yet, but we're both planning to go to Italy in March as part of a school field trip. My only other experience in Europe was going to Scotland when I was about 5, and I barely remember that at all.

We're already set to fly from America into Paris, spend four nights at Disneyland Paris pre-cruise, and also to spend a few days in Paris post-cruise before flying home from Paris. First visit to France!

But upon further reflection and research, I'm wondering if the week of the cruise wouldn't be better spent on land, so we could see sights than could not be visited during the cruise. Visiting the beaches of Normandy during the 75th anniversary of D-Day would be a possibility, as that's the week we're set to cruise. I've always wanted to visit the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, which is a just a few hours from Paris via high-speed train. There are also a lot of architectural sights and special gardens that we could visit in France and Spain, taking the train from place to place during the trip. We could still see the Mediterranean (we'd probably still go to Barcelona), but the Med would only be one stop during the trip, rather than the place to spend a whole week.

Thoughts? Advice?

 

[deanimal]

This may not be the most popular opinion on these boards, but I would vote for the land option. The European cruises, especially the Western Med ones, are more about cruising than Europe. Many of the cities are hours away from the ports, especially in Italy, which gives you only a few 6-10 hour windows to actually see Europe over the course of a week or two week cruise. It's just not enough! (Eastern Med cruises, which tend to visit easier to access ports such as Venice, Dubrovnik and the Greek Islands are a bit better).

Anyone with an internet connection and a bit of planning ability could put together a fabulous European itinerary for a fraction of the cost of a Disney cruise to Europe. For example, there are high speed train connections between Barcelona, Paris and Amsterdam that can get you from one to the other quite quickly. You can pre-book times for the Anne Frank house and the Eiffel tower online (as well as others) and get in with no waits at all, like we did back in August. We rented a car for a day in Belgium to tour the Canadian World War One sights without any issues, but there are many great tour companies that run great history tours geared towards the interests of different nationalities near the D day sights as well. Many will pick up and drop off at hotels or the train station.

Overall, if you want week of relaxing with a bit of Europe thrown in, a cruise would be the way to go. But if you want to actually scratch the surface of Europe and experience some of the culture and history, staying on shore makes much more sense.

 

[TestingH2O]

I also vote land. We did the Med this summer. It was a great introduction to Europe for my 6 year old, but if she was older, I'd would have wanted much more touring time for her.

Honestly, the cruise part is pretty minimal if you do excursions every day. We definitely didn't come home relaxed. But for our situation it was Perfect for giving a balance between trying and Disney for DD.

 

[olafLover]

.

 

[Geomom]

In your case, since you're already flying into Paris and planning to spend days there vs. flying straight into Barcelona--I'd probably just do a land trip. From what I've read the Western Mediterranean doesn't have the sights close to the ports. (We did the Northern European cruise and all the main sights were within 1/2 hr of the port--that area is perfect for cruising!) And, if you're already visiting Italy in the Spring through a school trip--you'll already have the main sites covered--and during a less busy time! Obviously, you should check with your son before cancelling the cruise--just in case he has his heart set on the cruise part!

 

[aggiedog]

I'll throw another idea out - do a cruise, but on another line, then use the money you saved to do a land portion. We looked at DCL for the Med last year and ended up sailing MSC in their Yacht Club (concierge section.) The cost difference between DCL non-concierge and MSC concierge gave me enough money to do a week in France pre-cruise.

I agree with the above posters that the ports on a Med cruise are often far from the cities they advertise. And since we like to make the most of our days, we tend to be first off, last on tourists - which leads to long days, so the ship is really just a way to keep from unpacking/packing many times. You just get a taste of the cities, which isn't nearly the same thing as sitting after dinner in a cafe, watching the locals go by.

We used this company for our land portion. They were amazing, and I'd recommend them highly. https://www.france-justforyou.com We did a self guided tour, and they found us amazing little hotels, and have every detail arranged, including Paris metro tickets, walking tour suggestions, and a customized large bound book that even had French road signs and phrases. Truly outstanding service.

We really enjoyed our cruise ports, and did less popular off the beaten path sorts of excursions. It was a nice mix from our land portion, so I think you can have a good vacation doing both if you really want some of the aspects of cruising.

If you really think you want to see Normandy during the 75 anniversary, I'd start booking lodging at least right away. I suspect it will be very, very busy.

We went to the Anne Frank house last year. I'd highly recommend doing the tour that includes a docent talk for 30 minutes at the beginning. It really puts things in context. I think you can only reserve those spots 2-4 weeks out though. Otherwise, the rest of the tour is self guided with headphones, filing thru empty rooms with many, many other people. Amsterdam was amazing and I'd love to go back.

I think Americans are tempted to go/do/see as much as possible when going to Europe, since we're already across the ocean. I'd advise trying to spend 3-4 days minimum anywhere, so you don't spend half your vacation on trains or highways.

 

[DietCokeMommy]

I think it depends on what kind of trip appeals to you. A cruise gives you a taste of each location, which is fun and cool to see so many cultures in one week span.

But on a land trip you’re much more immersed in the culture and location. Waking up in a hotel or house in a foreign country, eating all your meals in that country (versus breakfast and maybe dinner of Americanized food in the boat), being surrounded by a foreign language day and night. Land trips are really good for the more immersive experience. But it can be harder to do multiple locations. You have to pack up at each one, navigate transportation in a foreign language, etc.

DH and I are planning a trip to Paris and Provence and this is our dilemma. A cruise is easier in many ways but we can’t quite tailor it to what we want. And way more expensive of course.

 

[kaseyC]

Considering the age of your son, I would lean towards a land trip. With the fantastic high-speed train and inexpensive intra-Europe flights you could easily get around. By not cruising you could also free up funds for some amazing private or small group tours and experiences for you and your son.

 

[kiford]

I can't really say which would work better for you but we did two Med cruises (one 10-day and one 11-day) that gave us the opportunity to hit a number of different places. It really helped us to make decisions of must-see sights for our recent 3-week trip to Italy. We also discovered just how much planning it takes to do an European land tour if you actually want to see those must-see sights. Depending on where you're staying in relation to what you want to see, you still have transportation to content with either from your accommodation to the sight or from your accommodation to the train stations or airports. It's also way more exhausting (or maybe that's just how we did it ). I'm very glad we did our "recon missions" first by cruise. On one of our Med cruises, we did a tour of St. Peter's and the Vatican Museum. We decided not to repeat that on our Italy trip. That would have taken a full day out of our time in Rome and instead we did some more low key, less well known things so we all felt that it was a good decision and one that we would not have done if we'd not done the cruise first. However, as we also learned, once is not enough. Even after two Med cruises and 3-4 days in several cities, we still feel like we need at least 2-3 months per location to really see what we want properly. So I don't think you can make a mistake in whatever you choose to do.

 

[slg]

I go to Europe with my family every year and we do a lot of land travel BUT we also cruise and for my teenage sons, cruising is a highlight. They love making friends from all over the world and some have remained friends for years. Travelling is exhausting and stressful, especially if you haven’t done Europe before. If your son is social, as my three boys are, I would opt for keeping what you have. It will give you a taste of everything, but still allow your son time to make friends and for you to relax. You may end this trip liking each other a lot more.

 

[WishUponAStarryNight]

Like many have already said, it depends on what your goals are. If you want to hit a few highlights, then I'd stick with the cruise. It will give you a flavor of different places to help you determine whether you'd like to return to do a more immersive trip. Hopping from Paris to Normandy to Amsterdam to Barcelona and back to Paris is a lot to accomplish in a week, especially since you have to coordinate the transportation, and you won't really get to experience much of what those places have to offer. If you would be happy to spend your week between your trips to Paris touring another region of France, then a land trip might make the most sense.

 

[WishUponAStarryNight]

Oh, and given your son's age, you may want to consider a more active/adventure trip for the two of you. There are a bunch of tour companies that do great family adventure trips. As an example, here's a link to one that tours the Loire Valley (I think it's ok to post the link): https://www.austinadventures.com/packages/france-family-loire-valley/. Another way to get a more authentic feel for a country that is new to you (and all the coordination work is done for you ). Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[GPaLarry]

I spent 2 1/2 years in Germany with the Army many moons ago. At that time I didn't know if I would ever get back, so I traveled/toured 17 countries by plane, train and bus...still didn't see it all. As you gather from the comments above, Europe has a lot to offer and can't be completely seen in a lifetime. We have been on eight DCL cruises, three Europe related (Med./WBTA B2B & Baltic Capitals). The cruises, and their excursions, give you a different prospective and exposed me to sites I had seen before (1959-62). Pompeii, the Vatican and the Coliseum, for example, have more security, bigger crowds and venders than when I was there. However, they are what they are and can't be duplicated. I suggest you sit down with your son and Rick Steves book(s) on Europe and prioritize what you want to see (i.e. Paris, Barcelona, Rome, etc. and their individual features), what your budget can stand and the time you each have available over the next few years. If DCL can get you to a few, it is a fun way to go. Often, at Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen and the Coliseum, DCL gets you fast and/or early entry passes that give you more time to visit. However, travel by land has its advantages, too. Rent a car and drive through Germany, for example, to meet the people up close and personal. Remember, banks and most hotels speak English and are willing to help. Decisions, decisions...lots to think about. Best of luck!

 

[FSU Girl]

It's so funny you posted this because I'm having the same dilemma and considering cancelling my European cruise and doing just land trip instead. What I did was researched everything I wanted to do and typed up a comparison of itineraries of what we would do with the cruise and what we would do with land. I also created a chart with all the expenses to see which trip will end up costing more. The nice thing with doing a land trip is you get to really immerse yourself into the culture. You aren't rushing off to get back on the cruise every day and only seeing a city for a few hours. The nice thing with the cruise is you'll see more in a small amount of time and not have to worry too much about planning and all your meals are accounted for. With a kid I think I'd do the cruise. It'll be an easier trip for you and you are still having some time in Paris so that'll be nice.

 

[cruiser21]

I would do a cruise on another line and do a land portion. You're a teacher and off for the Summer you don't have time constraints. I'd want to take the longest vacation possible for the least amount of money. If I had to choose between the two I'd always choose a cruise over land, but I'm not crazy about med cruises. It was probably my least favorite cruise.

I also have a 14 year old and he'd be bored to death on a land vacation. He needs the activity and the socialization on the ship.

 

[KashasMom]

I'd say a 100% land tour. You will see/do so much more and experience the culture much more than you would on a ship! The trains in Europe are great. My son and I did 6 weeks trip through Europe/UK the summer he turned 13 and we had a blast - lifelong memories. A cruise is just a cruise...you can be anywhere and still have a great cruise. The fact that the ports are so far from the city centers in the Med are such a turn off for me. We did an exhausting (but amazing) Baltic cruise and for the short amount of time we actually spent on the ship, there is no way DCL would have been worth it. Enjoy the things YOU want to do - Normandy, Paris Disney, Amsterdam, etc. Let your son be involved in the planning. There are great "family" things to do in all cities in Europe.

 

[remlap]

We did two weeks in Europe last summer, including a week on the Magic. For what it's worth, I was saying let's skip the cruise, and just go land, however, we had a great time and I wouldn't change a thing. Are you going to see everything, heck no. However, go buy the Rick Steve's book for cruising the med, and travel independently in the ports taking the train and you'll have a great time and see the highlights and see more than people on Disney Port Adventures. At every port, we had decided we would each pick out a favorite thing, which became our must dos. Anything above and beyond those two things would be bonus. Naples was Pompeii and Pizza. Rome was Scavi Tour and Colosseum. Florence was David & Tower of Pisa. We had an unplanned port change from Villa France to Marseilles and was able to whip out Rick Steves and plan out our day.
For the record our trip:
SA: Fly into London
SU: Harry Potter & Cursed Child (it hadn't been announced it was opening in NYC when we bought tix)
MO: Eurostar to gates of Disneyland Paris
TU: Disneyland Paris 3/4 day, train to Paris
WE: Train to Normandy. Rent Car, American Cemetery, D-Day beach, St. Michel (normal people do D-Day or St. Michel, not both)
TH: High Speed Rail to Barcelona
FR: Barcelona
SA Barcelona AM, board Disney Magic
SA Week later Disembark Magic, drop luggage at hotel, train to Montserrat
SU Fly Home to California

 

[g00fy!]

We are doing the 50/50 type tour next summer. Our focus country is Italy, so we have an AirBNB apartment reserved and will be doing a week on land, concentrating on Rome and surrounding areas. We then will board an RCL western med cruise from Rome to add a few extra places. We have a range of ages and this fits what everyone wants. You can read Rick Steve's Mediterranean ports to see if there are things that will interest you that will fit in a cruise day. We chose RCI because, according to Rick Steves, they have some of the longest port days whereas Disney has some of the shortest port days by several hours. We want to max out our time in port, so even an hour makes a difference to us.

 

[aggiedog]

I would disagree with the thought that a teenage boy would not be interested in a land tour. Even my 12yo son enjoyed parts of our tours. I say parts because we usually travel with my parents, so 8 of us, ages 77, 75, 50, 48, 18,18,15, 13 now. I try to plan something for everyone, though we all realize there will be some activities that are better for some. 12yo ds knows there will be the occasional museum, but we've also do several food tours, which he loves, speed boat rides thru the Helsinki archipelago, aquariums, and amusement parks (Tivoli Gardens - amazing.) Also, the OP's 14yo should have had at least a taste of world history and geography in school, so he'll have some frame of reference. There's no rule that says you need to see every art museum and cathedral in Europe. Feel free to pick what you really want to see and not all just what the guide books say you should. My most recent travel regret was getting bogged down in the Ufizi museum in Florence and completely missing the Da Vinci museum down the road. I'd've much rather seen his inventions than one more darn painting of the Madonna and Child.

 

[tink1970]

I think it really depends on how much you want "me" time--not planning every single thing including meals, lodging, transportation in addition to how social your DS is. I've travelled a lot with DD who is an only child and while she's a good sport when it's just the two of us, she definitely prefers the socialization aspect of land group tours and/or cruises. For her graduation this summer I literally offered her any choice of vacations anywhere and she chose the a river cruise with ABD so she would have lots of other people around. We're ending it with a few land days but that's at my insistence

I recognize children are different but having been a single parent of an only child, having others around was best for our situation.