Month Europe Trip

I feel like reversing the question. You ask if there are any must sees in those countries. (In fact, you don't mention any countries - just cities.)

I ask: why are these countries on your itinerary in the first place if you can't think of any "must-sees"?

Why put those cities into your itinerary if you want to know if they're "just not worth seeing"?

Surely, the way to do this is to research those countries and cities first. Whether anywhere has any "must-sees" or is "worth seeing" is a very personal thing. However, it doesn't require much imagination to come up with at least a couple of 'must-sees' in Rome.

Hostels can be one of the more important parts of your trip, if you'll talk WITH people from other nations.

If you're not careful, the most you'll get is mileage.
Chill.
We can't know much about a place, until we get there.
It takes about a half day to get your free breakfast, then find your way around. Getting lost is a bonus too.

10 cities Dublin on your way in = 11 places = 12 travel days ( time to recover from Jey lag) - then there are max 20 days left = 2/city. That isn't much and you are still only seeing a few random towns in Europe.
Stick to a smaller region.
I AM aware that soem of your trips are not that long but they still tend to eat a most of a day.
For short trip (a few hours) night trains arn't an option.
Do you expect to get sleepers on longer distances (only possible at direct trains) or can you sleep in a seat?
600USD/day for 2 for hotel and food, entrance fees and trains should be lots of money. (USD100 for hotel, 100+ for good food and cheap wine)

IS Krakow/Auschwitz really important (visit another termination camp if that is important - one that is easier to reach from you other destinations - or a KZ camp).
Heidelberg is also a bit far from the others - many other (much more romantic) German towns: Rothenburg? or many others in Franconia.

RE transport: You HAVE to (if it should be a partical trip) fly to/from Dublin (that is only "halfway" - that's why it is cheap).

" if there are any must sees in those countries " - there are 100s of must-sees in every European country!

I agree with Bjoern's calculations regarding time available for each destination.

+1.

30 days might seem like a lot, but travel times will eat a lot of your itinerary. Let's say you have a four hour train ride. You probably need to make preparations to leave the hostel and get to the train station at least 1-2 hours before departure. Once you arrive, you usually need 1-2 hours to find your hotel/hostel, drop off you luggage, check in and get settled. Suddenly, that four hour train ride becomes eight hours and your day is shot.

I agree that it's usually much more efficient to just pick a region -- say three countries or so. That will allow you to see the capital or major city, and maybe have a look at a couple of smaller villages or cities. For what it's worth, I spent 16 days traveling around Italy, and felt as if I didn't even scratch the surface. For example, I can't imagine a trip to Italy being complete without seeing the rural countryside, especially in Tuscany. Or how about Venice? If it were me, I'd do 10 days in Italy, 10 days in Germany, (which won't really give you tons of time to see much) and take the remaining 10 days and see a couple of other cities or a country you really want to see.

Dave

I do agree I would like to spend more time in Italy. I've already been to Rome and Florence so I don't have to spend as much time in both of those because I have already seen about half the stuff I want to. I'd like to find a smaller town between Rome and Florence to see. I've been looking at Assisi or Siena, have you been to either of those? I am also having trouble deciding if I would rather go to Venice or Milan, I have heard they are both really expensive too. Any ideas? I'm going to scratch Krakow off the list unless we decide to stay longer then 35 days.

The choice between Milan and Venice is not even a contest, in my opinion. Milan does have a pleasant historic center with the great cathedral and covered shopping plaza thing. But besides that, it's really a modern city where Italian commerce is done. It's not a great tourist city, in my opinion.

At the same time, Venice spawned the phrase, "See Venice, then die." It's a touristy city, to be sure, but it's been a tourist attraction for hundreds of years. It's incredibly gorgeous and historic, and shouldn't be missed.

Dave

I could also add to Daveelstrom's description of Venice...."...and it's surprisingly easy to get away from the tourist hordes if you're prepared to explore a little..."

You are definitely covering too much territory in the amount of time allotted, unless your point is merely to be able to check big cities off your list.

Just to take Switzerland as an example, I will not say that Zurich is not worth seeing, but there are at least 3 other cities in Switzerland that are more interesting -- just off the top of my head: Lucerne, Geneva, Lausanne.

As an American, you should know that this is not a once-in-a-lifetime trip, as it is for the residents of many less privileged countries, and you will probably be able to return to Europe relatively often (and particularly when the dollar regains some strength). Don't overdo it this time.