DGS49
Diamond Member
I just got back from a two week Viking ocean cruise that included stops in England, Scotland, Wales, and ended up - as many of them do - in Bergen, Norway. This was my 6th Viking cruise, three ocean and three river.
There is simply no denying that the river cruises are better. Indeed, it is a common theme of conversation on ocean cruises about how they just don't provide the level of connection with the desired venues and people that river cruises do. The itineraries cannot be the same, of course; you can't take an ocean cruise to a city that is inland, like Vienna, but the river experience is a better tourism experience.
For example, my itinerary included stops in London and Edinburgh. At most you get 5-6 hours there to absorb cities that cannot be fully explored in less than a month. You would as well watch a couple of YouTube videos.
Better than river cruises, actually, are bus tours, at least that's my opinion.
I am nearing the end of my cruising days. I's starting to be one of the ones that holds up the group when going up a hill or something. I don't want to be that guy.
The upside, of course, is the cruising experience itself. You are pampered and well fed, every hour of the day, and often they provide you with excellent entertainment and guest speakers. Even if they were all "sea days," it could still be a good, enjoyable vacation. My particular cruise had a "historian" who gave us informative lectures on such mundane topics as the making of wool, the world's most precious chess pieces(!), and different segments of Britain's royal history. I cannot even convey how entertaining that last one was to an American who thinks it's all bullshit. The British royals are the most prominent collection of worthless jerks in the history of humankind, and yet to this very day they are worshipped as demi-gods. I love it.
Anyway, overall it was a good way to spend two weeks and get away from it all. I didn't pick up a newspaper (either literally or virtually), or log into any website for two weeks.
There is simply no denying that the river cruises are better. Indeed, it is a common theme of conversation on ocean cruises about how they just don't provide the level of connection with the desired venues and people that river cruises do. The itineraries cannot be the same, of course; you can't take an ocean cruise to a city that is inland, like Vienna, but the river experience is a better tourism experience.
For example, my itinerary included stops in London and Edinburgh. At most you get 5-6 hours there to absorb cities that cannot be fully explored in less than a month. You would as well watch a couple of YouTube videos.
Better than river cruises, actually, are bus tours, at least that's my opinion.
I am nearing the end of my cruising days. I's starting to be one of the ones that holds up the group when going up a hill or something. I don't want to be that guy.
The upside, of course, is the cruising experience itself. You are pampered and well fed, every hour of the day, and often they provide you with excellent entertainment and guest speakers. Even if they were all "sea days," it could still be a good, enjoyable vacation. My particular cruise had a "historian" who gave us informative lectures on such mundane topics as the making of wool, the world's most precious chess pieces(!), and different segments of Britain's royal history. I cannot even convey how entertaining that last one was to an American who thinks it's all bullshit. The British royals are the most prominent collection of worthless jerks in the history of humankind, and yet to this very day they are worshipped as demi-gods. I love it.
Anyway, overall it was a good way to spend two weeks and get away from it all. I didn't pick up a newspaper (either literally or virtually), or log into any website for two weeks.
