1st Time in Europe
 

My husband and I are planning our first Europe trip for hopefully 2017. Everything is so overwhelming and trying to decide where to go. We want to experience great wine, beer, food, and culture. So far for sure we know we want to go for 3 weeks-month. Dublin, Paris, London, Liverpool, Amsterdam, Rome, Venice, Tuscany, Munich are places of interest. We want to see as much we can without cramming our time and not being able to capture the richness of each place. Any advice on where to go and see, how to travel, and anything else would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much

You need to prioritize and pare down your wish list. Eight cities plus one region, spread over six countries, is just too much in 21 or even 28 days. To use your own words, you'd be cramming your time and would not be able to capture the richness of each place.

I have a travel formula - 1 week in a big city in an apartment to really get a feel of a place and then the next week split by visiting 2 reasonably close cities. So London for a week then Paris/Amsterdam 3-4 nights. Rome for a week then Venice/Tuscany. Dublin is out of the loop IMO. We used this formula in the States last year when we went for a month. We had a week in New York - I was never bored and cannot wait to go back there!

we usually plan to spend 3-5 days in an area. one day is taken up by transfer and settling in. often you have the evening to wander the area where you staying. apartments are the way to go. available in all cities. they are usually more affordable than hotels and are like being at home - full kitchen, living room, dining, terrace/balcony, wifi. you often have access the owner and their knowledge of the area. breakfast in, a nice lunch out and a lite meal/snack in the evening. makes trip affordable.

when you are ready to start making your plans, fly into one city and fly out of another. no reason to backtrack. price will be about the same.

you have plenty of time so do a lot of research and make use of forums like this.

It's doable, but you'll always be in a hurry if you try to do too much.

tasmangirl is right, try picking some main points of interest to ground your trip and work around them.
I think a week each is a bit much to spend in only one place, especially if you want to see so many places, but scale it down a bit and the system should work. I know they're all great cities and a few days won't even begin to cover everything they have to offer, but that's up to you and how you decide to split your time.

It can be overwhelming to chose just a few when everything seems so attractive, but sometimes it's the best way to go. Maybe think about any future possibilities of travel and cover the less probable ones for now?

Get the Rick Steves Europe book. He helps new (and old) European travelers narrow down the variables. FWIW I have generally spent about 3 days in major cities and enjoyed that length of time. But you have to figure in travel time. That is a lot of destinations and opportunities for issues to arise.

Any advice on where to go and see, how to travel, and anything else would be greatly appreciated.>

Well with the distances you want to cover and the large tourist cities you want to see - and rightly so having dreamt of visiting them all your lives - then trains are a no-brainer as cars more and more are a liability in the type of cities you mention in your OP (original post)-

large sections of city centres are off-limits to private vehicles - parking can cost $30 a day or more if you can find it - many city cengtre hotels may not offer parking, etc.

So take trains - blowing up to nearly 200mph on many routes - between the big cities - once there public transit goes everywhere and like trains are a snap to use.

anyway for lots of great info IMO on planning a European train trip check out these sources: www.ricksteves.com; www.seat61.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com - download the latter's free online European Planning & Rail Guide for lots of rail itineraries in many areas and a wealth of practical tips.

Just remember that travel time between destinations - even if they're not great distances apart - will eat up the better part of a day.

Packing up, checking out, getting to your mode of transportation (station or airport), waiting for the bus/train/plane, getting to your next hotel or apartment, checking in ... that's a lot of tasks, not to mention getting oriented to wherever you are. If you try to go to too many places, you could basically be "transporting" for half your time.

It's your first trip to Europe, - of course you want to make it a great experience, but I believe if you have a month, focusing on three or maybe four destinations and really getting to know them could be a much richer experience than whirlwind visits to a lot of places. There are always possibilities for day trips from many cities.

For my first trip to Europe - a number of years ago and since then there have been subsequent returns - we rented an apartment in Rome for two and a half weeks, and about halfway through we took a three-day trip (via train) to Florence. I felt as if I really had an opportunity to get to know Rome - we were in a neighborhood, and I learned how to shop for groceries, take the metro, etc. Walked all over the city, had a great experience.

Our next trip was to Venice for a week and then the high speed train to Paris for ten days in an apartment. Again, I was so glad I could peruse each city without rushing (although I don't care what anyone says - even with ten days, it was impossible to get to everything we wanted to see and do in Paris!)

Since you say this is your "first" trip to Europe, hopefully that implies there will be more in the future? No need to try to cram in too much in one trip!

The most common mistake of first-time travelers to europe is trying to see way too many place in too little time - not counting the days it takes to get from one place to another and not realizing that it takes 2 nights in a city to get one full day of sightseeing.

Since you are starting so far in advance I would concentrate on determining what you really want to see and how long it will take to see those sights - then you can tell if 3 days (4 nights in London is enough - IMHO not nearly) or you want 6 days (7 nights) to see what you want.

Then you can make informed decisions on what to keep and what to drop. IMHO moving fast 3 weeks is 6 places/hotels - 9 would be more like a forced march than a vacation. We wold be more likely to stick to 4 or at most 5 places, with opportunity for a day trip or two.

And to see major cities train is usually the most efficient means of travel - with possibility of cheap flights if you have one or two longer distances. For anything 5 hours of less on the train it will be easier than flying.

ny is correct about taking the train. Those "cheap" European city-to-city airfares can really add up with any luggage (sometimes even carry-on!), reservation fees, and seat assignment fees. Not to mention all the wasted time at the airport.