Rhine cruise or Neuschwanstein?

If you want to see a castle, hop on the K-D cruise in St. Goar or Bacharach and take it to Braubach for a tour of a real medieval castle - www.marksburg.de

Neuschwanstein is a 19th-century fake that was hardly ever used.

It's 1 hour 10 min. from St. Goar to Bacharach by cruise boat. From St. Goar to Braubach is 1 hr. 25 minutes; if you start in Bacharach instead, it'll be about 2 hours.

To me, I think it would depend on from where I was coming. From Frankfurt, I wouldn't go all the way to Neuschwanstein; from Munich, I wouldn't go all the way to the Rhein.

Yes, Neuschwanstein was built in the 19th century, long after castles had any use, but it is an icon. Except for the Marksburg, every other castle on the Rhein is a fake (or a ruin). The Reichsburg, in Cochem, was rebuild from ruins at about the same time.

Neuschwanstein has links to a "builder" with historical significance, Ludwig. Have you ever heard of the builder of the Marksburg?

Thanks for the replies…in regard to location, rough itinerary is as follows:

Amsterdam–St Goar–Frankfurt–Rothenburg–Munich

OR

Amsterdam–Frankfurt–Rothenburg–Munich–Neuschwanstein

Trying to figure out which would be best. Want to stay the night in Rothenburg

It would help if you mentioned if you're traveling by train or car, and where your return airport is. Both Marksburg & Neuschwanstein castles are worth seeing. If you don't have a car, take a bus tour from Munich for the Neuschwanstein visit.

Oh right, sorry. We’re travelling by train. Our departure airport is Rome. We’re heading to Switzerland and Italy after Germany.

Re: Skipping Frankfurt..considering it. Doesn't look like there's too much to see there. But I could be wrong

Neuschwanstein or the Rhein. Read everything you can find about them and decide for yourself. Munich to Hohenschwangau and return will take all day. Bacharach to St. Goar takes 40 min (70 min the other way, against the current).

BTW, getting to the castle from Munich is so easy, I would never pay any one big money for a tour. For how to get to the castles from Munich, see my webpage.

I can't think of another place in the world that has such a density of ancient castles in such a small region as the Middle Rhine Valley. It would be my first choice over Neuschwanstein any time.

http://www.welterbe-mittelrheintal.de/index.php?id=35&L=3

From the website of the Marksburg, "Marksburg Castle is the only hill castle on the Rhine that has never been destroyed". The other castles on the Rhein are castles destroyed by Napoleon in around 1800 and reconstructed in the late 1800s about the same time as Neuschwanstein was built over the ruins of two previously destroyed castle. I see little difference.

In 2007, I toured Harburg castle, between Donauwörth and Nördlingen. I think it is original and intact. Later I saw Burghausen castle on the Salzach, on the border between Germany and Austria. I think it dates back almost a thousand years, and, except for the outer courtyard, which was destroyed by Napoleon, is intact. Except for damage by a fire in the late 1800s, the southern Hohenzollern castle in Sigmaringen is original, built over a foundation constructed in around 1000.

There's still a huge difference between reconstructions of ruined medivial castles and Neuschwanstein. Most reconstructions are based on the past or specific needs of the time it was rebuild. Neuschwanstein is pure Fantasy, not based on any historic designs and the need was purley to showcase the taste of the particular monarch. As such, Neuschwanstein has a very special place among all castles/chateaus in Europe. There's a reason Disney picked this one to centre his fantasy world around - because it feels so strong like fantasy.

If you're really into fantasy, go and don't miss Neuschwanstein. If you're more interested in history and European culture, make sure you get to see one of the Rhine castles.

"If you're really into fantasy, go and don't miss Neuschwanstein. If you're more interested in history and European culture, make sure you get to see one of the Rhine castles." Neuschwanstein is best visited arming oneself with an understanding of the then-vogue for Wagner-inspired German Romanticism. It isn't just pure fantasy, but a more extreme manifestation of some of the intellectual trends of the time. Ludwig didn't decorate rooms with scenes from the Niebelungenlied and the Lohengrin legend only because he liked seeing Siegfried slay the dragon but because of the underlying symbolism and what it meant to German culture at the time. Likewise, there is a connection of the grotto to the stories of Parsifal and Tannhauser. The theater is modeled after those of the medieval Meisterzingers to link the entertainments that would have been performed there with German history. In the throne room, the symbolism serves to place himself within the canon of saintly kings.

Yes, it is a lot of fantasy, but one firmly rooted in the culture of the period, just like the Rhine castles are linked to the culture of their time.

I'll add my two cents. I'm glad I went to see Neuschwanstein. As has been said, it's an icon and a must see. For me, however, Neuschwanstein was a one-time visit. I don't expect to return.

I try to visit the Rhine Valley each time I'm in the area. In addition to the cruise, you can see Marksburg, Rheinfels and do a self-guided walk around Bacharach - all worthwhile. When you get done with those, there are other good activities available.

I know there's lots to see in Frankfurt but I would rather spend my time in Germany in smaller towns. How about this itinerary? Amsterdam to the Rhine to Rothenburg to Fussen to Munich? You can then see both. Take an extra day in Fussen and take the Tegelberg gondola up into the mountains (or drive to the Zugspitze)then spend the afternoon at the spa in Schwangau. To sit outside in the hot saltwater baths while looking up at Neuschwanstein and the mountains is incredible and cheap - about $10 for two hours. If you can't take the extra day, see the castles in the morning and the spa in the afternoon. You won't regret it.