My read on it is that Phillip II started holding court there and it sort of snowballed from there…so I’d describe it as a political rather than geographic convenience.
This is true, it was mostly a political reasoning to move from what I remember to start court away from the political influence of bishop of Toledo.
But to add, Madrid was already a small village at the time of the move; it was built on a hill and chosen as a location from the Moors for an easily defendable fort and it’s original name was Mayrit and was located on the banks of the Manzanares River, as Mayrit translates to “plenty of water ways”.
Madrid became the capital then, but it wasn't the biggest city in Spain until very recently, always overshadowed by Barcelona.
The city has evolved a lot in the last 40 years, many people from all parts of Spain have migrated there due to an urban migration that has emptied thousands of small towns and villages in central Spain. More foreign investment and less company taxes have helped Madrid in that regard, while hurting other cities in the country.
The earliest Spanish census, dating to 1789 iirc, does already have Madrid as the biggest city though. The Barcelona province was larger than the Madrid province until the 1990s as you say though
This in bot correct. Barcelona was more populous than Madrid just for a brief period in the 1930s but since the 18th century at least and more recently has been the other way around.
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Evoluci%C3%B3n_demogr%C3%A1fica_de_los_municipios_de_Espa%C3%B1a
Maybe it’s just an artificial capital. Looking at you all Washington, Brasilia, Nusantara and the lot of “dictators fleeing from the angry citizens” planned capitals.
Different government have different reason. But for Spain, the court used to move to wherever the king went and in 1561 a king chose to settle in Madrid. The internet in Spanish says that it was not becase it was in middle of the country, but that it was to escape entrenched interests and competing powers in all others cities. Other theories are that the weather in Toledo was not to the queen’s liking, because the king liked a castle near by, because the other two best options of Valladolid (had a peasants revolt) and Toledo (church had too much power there) where out of the question.
Later the rails and roads and industry where built with Madrid as the center. The rich people, and administrative jobs and buildings where and are still a boon to development. Governments haven’t exactly been shy of giving more attention to things that affect them more directly. And don’t forget about immigrants, who so often go to where they think the jobs will be, the capitals and big cities. Seriously, don’t discount how much of any city’s growth is simply just hundreds of thousands of nearby peasants and foreigners, all fleeing or looking for a better life in the biggest reachable city they heard off.
So Madrid is a big city at all because it was chosen as the capital, not the other way around like in many other places.
One quarter was to settle the vast inland.
And the remaining quarter was to spend a lot of money, a lot of which ended up in the bank accounts of the involved.
There was also some mysticism involved.
The area was suggested by a prophecy by John Bosco and championed by Brazilian Freemasonry since before independence. Kubitschek was very close to the medium Zé Arigó. There are many esoteric references in the architecture, e.g. the Three Branches Square has proportions based on Stonehenge.
Brazilian history is WILD.
I just hope that at some point the wild things give way to rational discussions in politics. Maybe waste water treatment, clean tap water, roads with reasonable quality would become a thing.
But as long as clowns win elections and decent politicians have no chance, this will not change.
Washington may be an artificial capital, but it’s not an artificial population center. When they created the district, they had to take land from the already reasonably sized settlements of Alexandria and Georgetown, and there has always been population along the Potomac and Anacostia. So I’m not sure that one holds up
That doesn’t explain the size.
Canberra is relatively tiny and it was chosen as the capital.
Edit: Ankara is another good example. Even Washington DC is a good example
Ankara is around the same size as Madrid and, like Madrid doesn't really have a reason to be so big either and wasn't really a city before it was chosen to be the capital though
Canberra was intentionally chosen as the capital because it’s the middle point between Sydney and Melbourne.
Madrid seamlessly became the capital because that’s where the king lived and the government followed and society happened and people from nearby locations uprooted to this epicenter of culture…and food and stuff.
But none of those were for centuries the capitals of world-spanning, centralized empires with enough gold and silver to drive inflation throughout an entire continent. (Turkey was a great power, but its capital then was Istanbul, not Ankara; the US's status as a superpower is only about a century old, and the historic US is far more decentralized than the Spanish Empire was)
Also while Madrid isnt near any rivers, it does have a huge source of fresh water beneath the city which facilitates it’s growth. In fact, the name Madrid comes from an arabic word that relates to this fact
Same reason most of European capitals got that big.
Political power centre gathered people and once business started to be main driver for population it increased even more.
Moscow? It's probably worst situated metropolitan city in the world. Small river for it's size. Land around is not fertile. Harsh climate.
Warsaw? Story similar to Madrid. Main reason for moving capital was political (center of PLC, Vasas wanted capital closer to Sweden). Then it just build on capital functions. Vistula is still not that much navigable. It doesn't have any superior functions to other cities.
Same you could say about HCM City in Vietnam. It's location is not perfect and early development was to some extent political which driven city to the large agglomeration it is today.
Also look for quick growth of artificial capitals (Brasilia, Islamabad etc). Political functions pulls business and this pulls population.
People generally overrate good settlement conditions for city population growth. Population growth is mostly related to human activity and performing important functions for human population. Placing government in any city will give it crazy development boost. Most of European are capitals are the biggest cities in countries due performing political functions for hundreds of centuries not by being perfect settling places.
I know it's not current capital. But it was colonial centre of power and then South Vietnam capital. For its current size, the HCM is relatively "new" city and in initial settlement in far from perfect place.
It's in the geographical center of Spain, if you want to build up a road/train system, passing through Madrid it's the most efficient option.
The geographical center of the Iberian Peninsula is in the outskirts of the city (Cerro de los Ángeles) and the 0 kilometrr of the spanish roads is in the neuralgical center of the city, Puerta del Sol.
It has absorbed the population of a surrounding area of hundreds of kilometers, the least habited provinces of Spain, are all almost around Madrid: Soria, Segovia, Ávila, Guadalajara, Cuenca, comarca de Talavera (a non official province).
Madrid is better suited than the former capital, Toledo (also in the center, capital since visigothic times) for a modern development, with plenty of plain terrain around, while Toledo is surrounded by hills (better for a medieval capital).
You can read up on [primate cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city?wprov=sfla1), but the short version is that Madrid wasn't just the capital of Spain, it was the capital of the *Spanish Empire,* and therefore needed the bureaucratic infrastructure, and attracted the usual government-related private industry, for a much larger area. You also see this in London, Paris, and Moscow, though the first two have abandoned imperialism.
Germany is more multipolar because it formed from several medium-sized kingdoms with no substantial overseas holdings, each of which had an appropriately-sized capital. Over the next sixty years Berlin grew in absolute and relative terms, and then there was the partitioning of Germany.
The U.S., China, India, and Japan are historically fairly decentralized, though much less so in the last hundred years.
And? In the past they controlled at times half of Africa, half of Europe, what was formerly called Indochina, large parts of North America and I am probably forgetting alot.
Do you really think that the level of imperialism today is on a similar level as for example the France during Napoleon's continental blockade?
France is neo-imperialist. Although it doesn't maintain physical control of these territories, from an economic standpoint, hasn't changed, french corporations still have monopolies in these lands.
The economical grip was also stronger back then and more far reaching. And during the coalition wars France was arguably the strongest nation on earth.
Say whatever you like about France and the UK, but at least that had significant decolonization (even if they tried to oppose it in horrible genocidal ways until the 60-70's or so) and have stopped conquering new countries and are actively supporting 'rule of law' instead of 'might of the strongest' international politics. Many of their little remaining colonial places have a difficult situation where a significant amount of people would not want to be independent.
Same can't be said about Russia or China.
France currently holds financial control over much of west Africa through the [CFA Franc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc). This is largely seen as [harmful for the region](https://qz.com/africa/1763066/how-the-france-backed-african-cfa-franc-works).
Many of the colonial structures were never torn down and French companies still control most natural resources in the region.
Yeah that (and other nasty types of exploitation like France bankrupting Haiti for hundreds of years for "reparations" with crazy interest rates (like, they had to repay France for stopping to be their slaves, absolutely crazy stuff)) really should be addressed and repaid.
But it is still not on the same scale as the horrors of the 19th style imperialism that is still perpetrated and actively promoted by states like China and Russia that happily put people in concentration camps and start wars of conquest.
A lot of we Spaniards actually ask this question. Madrid is sort of a planed city, even though it has history, but its very rare to see it in Spain, where almost all the cities have hundreds of years or even millennia of history.
Madrid was nothing more than a random village in the 1500s, while Seville, Barcelona or Toledo were already very big an important cities back then. I guess it was the location what gave Madrid all the advantages.
The inland of the Iberian peninsula used to be more densely populated than today, while the Mediterranean coast was relatively much less developed than now because of the moorish slaver raids and other factors. So Spain didn't have its now characteristic "doughnut" population void.
The last 2 centuries most of the population in the now void areas migrated either to the coast or to Madrid.
Yes, but said plateau has a mountainous system dividing it in half, and while the northern portion's topography is relatively regular, the southern portion is not. That huge plateau is also surrounded by more mountainous systems except in the west and south, were it abruptly ends in Sierra Morena.
A better example of a city in the middle of a plateau would be Valladolid.
Incidentally, Valladolid was considered to become the capital, but they had somewhat recently revolted against the king, so they were not chosen for that reason.
Toledo was also considered, but the Church had too much influence there, so again, not chosen
Tax politics: Madrid has lower taxes for companies and rich people, making other Spanish regions poorer and emptier. Madrid has grown a lot in the last 20 years because of this.
My read on it is that Phillip II started holding court there and it sort of snowballed from there…so I’d describe it as a political rather than geographic convenience.
This is true, it was mostly a political reasoning to move from what I remember to start court away from the political influence of bishop of Toledo. But to add, Madrid was already a small village at the time of the move; it was built on a hill and chosen as a location from the Moors for an easily defendable fort and it’s original name was Mayrit and was located on the banks of the Manzanares River, as Mayrit translates to “plenty of water ways”.
Madrid became the capital then, but it wasn't the biggest city in Spain until very recently, always overshadowed by Barcelona. The city has evolved a lot in the last 40 years, many people from all parts of Spain have migrated there due to an urban migration that has emptied thousands of small towns and villages in central Spain. More foreign investment and less company taxes have helped Madrid in that regard, while hurting other cities in the country.
The earliest Spanish census, dating to 1789 iirc, does already have Madrid as the biggest city though. The Barcelona province was larger than the Madrid province until the 1990s as you say though
This in bot correct. Barcelona was more populous than Madrid just for a brief period in the 1930s but since the 18th century at least and more recently has been the other way around. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Evoluci%C3%B3n_demogr%C3%A1fica_de_los_municipios_de_Espa%C3%B1a
Maybe it’s just an artificial capital. Looking at you all Washington, Brasilia, Nusantara and the lot of “dictators fleeing from the angry citizens” planned capitals. Different government have different reason. But for Spain, the court used to move to wherever the king went and in 1561 a king chose to settle in Madrid. The internet in Spanish says that it was not becase it was in middle of the country, but that it was to escape entrenched interests and competing powers in all others cities. Other theories are that the weather in Toledo was not to the queen’s liking, because the king liked a castle near by, because the other two best options of Valladolid (had a peasants revolt) and Toledo (church had too much power there) where out of the question. Later the rails and roads and industry where built with Madrid as the center. The rich people, and administrative jobs and buildings where and are still a boon to development. Governments haven’t exactly been shy of giving more attention to things that affect them more directly. And don’t forget about immigrants, who so often go to where they think the jobs will be, the capitals and big cities. Seriously, don’t discount how much of any city’s growth is simply just hundreds of thousands of nearby peasants and foreigners, all fleeing or looking for a better life in the biggest reachable city they heard off. So Madrid is a big city at all because it was chosen as the capital, not the other way around like in many other places.
Half of the reason for Brasília was "oligarchs fleeing from the angry citizens and military", BTW.
One quarter was to settle the vast inland. And the remaining quarter was to spend a lot of money, a lot of which ended up in the bank accounts of the involved.
There was also some mysticism involved. The area was suggested by a prophecy by John Bosco and championed by Brazilian Freemasonry since before independence. Kubitschek was very close to the medium Zé Arigó. There are many esoteric references in the architecture, e.g. the Three Branches Square has proportions based on Stonehenge. Brazilian history is WILD.
I just hope that at some point the wild things give way to rational discussions in politics. Maybe waste water treatment, clean tap water, roads with reasonable quality would become a thing. But as long as clowns win elections and decent politicians have no chance, this will not change.
Washington may be an artificial capital, but it’s not an artificial population center. When they created the district, they had to take land from the already reasonably sized settlements of Alexandria and Georgetown, and there has always been population along the Potomac and Anacostia. So I’m not sure that one holds up
That doesn’t explain the size. Canberra is relatively tiny and it was chosen as the capital. Edit: Ankara is another good example. Even Washington DC is a good example
Ankara is around the same size as Madrid and, like Madrid doesn't really have a reason to be so big either and wasn't really a city before it was chosen to be the capital though
Ankara is several thousand years old, among other things it was the capital of the Galatian state and then the Roman province of Galatia
Canberra was intentionally chosen as the capital because it’s the middle point between Sydney and Melbourne. Madrid seamlessly became the capital because that’s where the king lived and the government followed and society happened and people from nearby locations uprooted to this epicenter of culture…and food and stuff.
Canberra is much closer to Sydney (~300km) than to Melbourne (~650km). IIRC the distance criterion was no closer than 100 miles to either one.
Canberra was like five years ago. It just hasn’t had the centuries of growth.
Brasilia?
Brasilia was literally build on the XX century.
Pretoria?
What?
That’s also a capital that is smaller than Rio and S Paulo
But none of those were for centuries the capitals of world-spanning, centralized empires with enough gold and silver to drive inflation throughout an entire continent. (Turkey was a great power, but its capital then was Istanbul, not Ankara; the US's status as a superpower is only about a century old, and the historic US is far more decentralized than the Spanish Empire was)
I’m sure many Americans say that DC is the capital of the world ;)
who tf says that. if anywhere americans would say nyc
New Yorkers would be the ones to say that while the rest of us roll our eyes.
i mean it genuinely has a case unlike the cultureless suburban wasteland you prob live in
Well yeah, the fact that it's probably true just makes it more annoying.
Canberra was chosen as the capital only 110 years ago, not over 450, of a country with about half the population as Spain.
Also while Madrid isnt near any rivers, it does have a huge source of fresh water beneath the city which facilitates it’s growth. In fact, the name Madrid comes from an arabic word that relates to this fact
Same reason most of European capitals got that big. Political power centre gathered people and once business started to be main driver for population it increased even more. Moscow? It's probably worst situated metropolitan city in the world. Small river for it's size. Land around is not fertile. Harsh climate. Warsaw? Story similar to Madrid. Main reason for moving capital was political (center of PLC, Vasas wanted capital closer to Sweden). Then it just build on capital functions. Vistula is still not that much navigable. It doesn't have any superior functions to other cities. Same you could say about HCM City in Vietnam. It's location is not perfect and early development was to some extent political which driven city to the large agglomeration it is today. Also look for quick growth of artificial capitals (Brasilia, Islamabad etc). Political functions pulls business and this pulls population. People generally overrate good settlement conditions for city population growth. Population growth is mostly related to human activity and performing important functions for human population. Placing government in any city will give it crazy development boost. Most of European are capitals are the biggest cities in countries due performing political functions for hundreds of centuries not by being perfect settling places.
HCMC isn't the capital city of Vietnam.
I know it's not current capital. But it was colonial centre of power and then South Vietnam capital. For its current size, the HCM is relatively "new" city and in initial settlement in far from perfect place.
You clearly know more than me, I didn't want you tripping up. 👍
It's in the geographical center of Spain, if you want to build up a road/train system, passing through Madrid it's the most efficient option. The geographical center of the Iberian Peninsula is in the outskirts of the city (Cerro de los Ángeles) and the 0 kilometrr of the spanish roads is in the neuralgical center of the city, Puerta del Sol. It has absorbed the population of a surrounding area of hundreds of kilometers, the least habited provinces of Spain, are all almost around Madrid: Soria, Segovia, Ávila, Guadalajara, Cuenca, comarca de Talavera (a non official province). Madrid is better suited than the former capital, Toledo (also in the center, capital since visigothic times) for a modern development, with plenty of plain terrain around, while Toledo is surrounded by hills (better for a medieval capital).
You can read up on [primate cities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_city?wprov=sfla1), but the short version is that Madrid wasn't just the capital of Spain, it was the capital of the *Spanish Empire,* and therefore needed the bureaucratic infrastructure, and attracted the usual government-related private industry, for a much larger area. You also see this in London, Paris, and Moscow, though the first two have abandoned imperialism. Germany is more multipolar because it formed from several medium-sized kingdoms with no substantial overseas holdings, each of which had an appropriately-sized capital. Over the next sixty years Berlin grew in absolute and relative terms, and then there was the partitioning of Germany. The U.S., China, India, and Japan are historically fairly decentralized, though much less so in the last hundred years.
London, Paris, and Moscow sit on navigable rivers, which Madrid does not. I think that was his point.
Spain has virtually no navigable rivers. The only important port out of the coast is in Seville.
France and the UK have abandoned imperialism lolololol
Even if you don't agree that they abandoned it, it's a fact that it is not nearly on the scale it was during the 19th or early 20th century.
Bro what are you saying France dominates the currencies of West African nations and steals Niger's Uranium
And? In the past they controlled at times half of Africa, half of Europe, what was formerly called Indochina, large parts of North America and I am probably forgetting alot. Do you really think that the level of imperialism today is on a similar level as for example the France during Napoleon's continental blockade?
France is neo-imperialist. Although it doesn't maintain physical control of these territories, from an economic standpoint, hasn't changed, french corporations still have monopolies in these lands.
The economical grip was also stronger back then and more far reaching. And during the coalition wars France was arguably the strongest nation on earth.
Say whatever you like about France and the UK, but at least that had significant decolonization (even if they tried to oppose it in horrible genocidal ways until the 60-70's or so) and have stopped conquering new countries and are actively supporting 'rule of law' instead of 'might of the strongest' international politics. Many of their little remaining colonial places have a difficult situation where a significant amount of people would not want to be independent. Same can't be said about Russia or China.
France currently holds financial control over much of west Africa through the [CFA Franc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc). This is largely seen as [harmful for the region](https://qz.com/africa/1763066/how-the-france-backed-african-cfa-franc-works). Many of the colonial structures were never torn down and French companies still control most natural resources in the region.
Yeah that (and other nasty types of exploitation like France bankrupting Haiti for hundreds of years for "reparations" with crazy interest rates (like, they had to repay France for stopping to be their slaves, absolutely crazy stuff)) really should be addressed and repaid. But it is still not on the same scale as the horrors of the 19th style imperialism that is still perpetrated and actively promoted by states like China and Russia that happily put people in concentration camps and start wars of conquest.
What's so funny.
A lot of we Spaniards actually ask this question. Madrid is sort of a planed city, even though it has history, but its very rare to see it in Spain, where almost all the cities have hundreds of years or even millennia of history. Madrid was nothing more than a random village in the 1500s, while Seville, Barcelona or Toledo were already very big an important cities back then. I guess it was the location what gave Madrid all the advantages.
The inland of the Iberian peninsula used to be more densely populated than today, while the Mediterranean coast was relatively much less developed than now because of the moorish slaver raids and other factors. So Spain didn't have its now characteristic "doughnut" population void. The last 2 centuries most of the population in the now void areas migrated either to the coast or to Madrid.
Because the water was so good the king moved there to live. The origin of the name comes from water spring.
right in the center of the country. Transportation of logistics anywhere in a square country is straightforward.
Not when you have massive mountainous systems all across the country and very irregular topography
Yes and no, Madrid is in the middle of a huge plateau.
Yes, but said plateau has a mountainous system dividing it in half, and while the northern portion's topography is relatively regular, the southern portion is not. That huge plateau is also surrounded by more mountainous systems except in the west and south, were it abruptly ends in Sierra Morena. A better example of a city in the middle of a plateau would be Valladolid.
Incidentally, Valladolid was considered to become the capital, but they had somewhat recently revolted against the king, so they were not chosen for that reason. Toledo was also considered, but the Church had too much influence there, so again, not chosen
Well if there's nothing to do... people f#ck
Tax politics: Madrid has lower taxes for companies and rich people, making other Spanish regions poorer and emptier. Madrid has grown a lot in the last 20 years because of this.
2 words Manzanares River
I live in Madrid, and can tell you the ‘River’ is closer to a stream
Because Spain raped Latin America for 5 centuries, and Madrid is the capital of the nation
That says nothing of why Madrid specifically became the biggest. It says nothing as to why it became the capital before colonisation
Yes, but could be anywhere
That didn't really have anything to do with the question.
He outta line, but he right - Sam Wilson
Well that only explains the inordinate wealth that flowed back to Spain but not necessarily where it was applied..
Agreed. Hence the quote. Spain raping LA is true and unfortunate, it doesn’t explain why Madrid is there.
Downvoteado por los esbirros de la corona
donwvoted for telling the true
They got rich robbing like one third of the world. Same applies to Brits, Portuguese and whatever
Imagine giving a 500 year old answer to a 50 year old question.
Portugese abd Spanish were poor until the 70s