The only thing I would add is some context on why it was important for Philip II to find a city without any rival powers. Philip's father, Emperor Charles V, arrive as king of Spain in 1521, without much understanding of local politics (not even speaking Spanish). This resulted in the Revolt of the Comuneros, where an important part of nobility (including people from Toledo) raised against him.
This made crucial for his son to have a clear power strategy without any possible contestant, and changing the capital city to Madrid was perfect (for all the reasons you exposed).
I was doubting whether to add it to the story, but I think it does make it better, especially for those who know the dynastic details of Spain. Indeed, the Comuneros was crucial for Madrid as capital. Funnily, Madrid was one of the cities that resisted the most, and that was an asset for it to become capital, as the nobles were neutralized and their lands confiscated!
I think this is wonderful and so many of us don't really have a good background in world history and geography. I a world that is so connected this column is a wonderful resource to all.
Thank you, Tomas Pueyo, for another informative and engaging article!
I have learned that no matter the topic you choose, I will enjoy reading it and find my time well invested. Extraordinary, what you're doing here, thank you!
I tried to read the long form here, but it was so overlapping with the thread on X posted a week ago I couldn't, if there's more detail here I lost it because I was already primed from the previous read.
Sometimes I write very similar threads to articles. Other times I add more details. This is one where there were few additional details; you’re right! The value of subscribing is particularly to not miss any of the future articles.
Madrid article makes interesting contrast with Canberra, capital of Australia, founded after federation of Australian states, to avoid selection of either of the two dominant cities, Sydney and Melbourne, located half way between them. Main traffic is by air, for politicians. - Bob Ritchie
Your timeline of capitals includes cities that were destroyed and rebuilt (Carthage was founded in 814 BC, but Tunis was founded in 698 AD), credits foundation dates to villages that were not yet cities (Zagreb got its charter in 1242 AD), and omits some younger cities in the Roman footprint (Bern was only founded in 1194 AD).
Very possible. The goal was not to create an academically bullet-proof chronology of all modern-day capitals situated on Roman lands, but rather to get a reasonably accurate comparison of city foundation times to highlight how recent Madrid is.
The capitan wasn't in the Iberian Peninsula because it was the geographical center of the whole empire but because it was the political center. Castille was the head of that empire. Also, El Escorial was not built up because of "many ideas gathered from European possessions". It was built up to conmemorate the San Quintin battle where spaniars devastated the French.
I think there is one last big event in recent history that has made Madrid much bigger and more powerful, and it was a political one. Franco decided to boost Madrid and between 1948 and 1954 annexed 13 neighboring towns. Madrid went from having 68 km² of surface area to having 607 km², multiplying it by 9. Around that time, Madrid had around 1 million inhabitants; with the annexations, 330,000 residents were added, which is huge too. Currently, Madrid still has a lot of land on the outskirts where it can continue to expand.
But there is a clear contrast with Barcelona. There, the opposite approach has been taken; Barcelona has no room to expand, it is encapsulated. I believe that decades later, the success of this strategy is evident. Barcelona and its power hub have gone from being clearly above Madrid to losing the race between the two cities.
Madrid is located in the middle of a very flat area and can extend infinitely, whereas Barcelona has mountains on one side and the sea on the other. However, I think there is a significant difference, which is very noticeable in one of the municipalities surrounding Barcelona: L'Hospitalet de Llobregat. It is a separate municipality, yet it is seamlessly integrated into the city's fabric. When you walk, you do not know when Barcelona ends and L'Hospitalet begins.
The fact that completely opposite solutions have been chosen for the two cities fits very well with what I have read from you more about Spain. The dynamics of power, center vs. periphery, plateau vs. coast. The decision to create a Greater Madrid is an endorsement on the radial and centralist model.
I believe that Spain is currently experiencing a unique moment in its history, where the wealth and economic power of the center is for the first time comparable to or greater than that of the coasts.
The same situation with Berlin: they united the surrounding municipalities with the Greater Berliner Act in the early 1900s, doubling its population. Even today Berlin feels like a collection of town, each neighborhood has its own centre, high street, city hall, main train station etc.
Regarding glued together cities like Barcelon and L‘Hospitalet, the same is for Frankfurt and Offenbach, they refused to unite.
But Spain *isn't* an old country. What we call Spain now only came together in 1492 with the conquest of Granada and the expulsion of the Moorish rulers. From the 8th century to at least the 11th it was al-Andalus. And, of course, Philip II made a very conscious decision to run the patchwork Habsburg monarchy differently from his father. Charles V spent his life travelling, and Philip II decided to stay in one place and have the bureaucracy come to him. Hence the Escorial.
Mostly they are, yes (exceptions like Brasilia, Canberra, Astana etc). But the essay mentioned Spain being an "old country", and it's a striking example of a country that isn't old, with specific reasons for its capital being what and where it is.
In hindsight, picking Mardrid as the capital instead of Toledo or Seville has made it much easier to quell the cries for independence from Catalonia and Basque country.
I should have formed that as a question and used "might" instead of "has".
The lack of physical interconnection from the southwest to the northeast zones in the form of waterways/roads could have promoted more divergent states to form?
The rivers don’t connect Madrid to the northeast, and the roads were made on purpose for Madrid. It would have been easy to make them go through Valladolid or Toledo. Sevilla is a different thing though, too far away, I agree.
Good recap.
The only thing I would add is some context on why it was important for Philip II to find a city without any rival powers. Philip's father, Emperor Charles V, arrive as king of Spain in 1521, without much understanding of local politics (not even speaking Spanish). This resulted in the Revolt of the Comuneros, where an important part of nobility (including people from Toledo) raised against him.
This made crucial for his son to have a clear power strategy without any possible contestant, and changing the capital city to Madrid was perfect (for all the reasons you exposed).
Thanks for this article!
You’re right!
I was doubting whether to add it to the story, but I think it does make it better, especially for those who know the dynastic details of Spain. Indeed, the Comuneros was crucial for Madrid as capital. Funnily, Madrid was one of the cities that resisted the most, and that was an asset for it to become capital, as the nobles were neutralized and their lands confiscated!
Interesting
I think this is wonderful and so many of us don't really have a good background in world history and geography. I a world that is so connected this column is a wonderful resource to all.
How could the education system waste so much of our time?!
Fascinating info! Thank you for writing it.
Great words
Thank you, Tomas Pueyo, for another informative and engaging article!
I have learned that no matter the topic you choose, I will enjoy reading it and find my time well invested. Extraordinary, what you're doing here, thank you!
That is a huge compliment. Thank you!
I tried to read the long form here, but it was so overlapping with the thread on X posted a week ago I couldn't, if there's more detail here I lost it because I was already primed from the previous read.
Sometimes I write very similar threads to articles. Other times I add more details. This is one where there were few additional details; you’re right! The value of subscribing is particularly to not miss any of the future articles.
Having just returned from Barcelona, I found this fascinating, informative and well written. Have subscribed!
Welcome!
Awesome article.
I’ve often wondered the same thing compared to other European cities. Thanks for the informative lecture.
Madrid article makes interesting contrast with Canberra, capital of Australia, founded after federation of Australian states, to avoid selection of either of the two dominant cities, Sydney and Melbourne, located half way between them. Main traffic is by air, for politicians. - Bob Ritchie
Sounds like the logic is consistent
Your timeline of capitals includes cities that were destroyed and rebuilt (Carthage was founded in 814 BC, but Tunis was founded in 698 AD), credits foundation dates to villages that were not yet cities (Zagreb got its charter in 1242 AD), and omits some younger cities in the Roman footprint (Bern was only founded in 1194 AD).
Very possible. The goal was not to create an academically bullet-proof chronology of all modern-day capitals situated on Roman lands, but rather to get a reasonably accurate comparison of city foundation times to highlight how recent Madrid is.
Love reading such informative article...
"The only thing that navigates the Manzanares is its inferiority complex."- I didn't know I could feel sorry for a river.
You shouldn’t. There are plenty of small streams in the world. Only a few host capitals. It’s playing way out of its league
The capitan wasn't in the Iberian Peninsula because it was the geographical center of the whole empire but because it was the political center. Castille was the head of that empire. Also, El Escorial was not built up because of "many ideas gathered from European possessions". It was built up to conmemorate the San Quintin battle where spaniars devastated the French.
I think there is one last big event in recent history that has made Madrid much bigger and more powerful, and it was a political one. Franco decided to boost Madrid and between 1948 and 1954 annexed 13 neighboring towns. Madrid went from having 68 km² of surface area to having 607 km², multiplying it by 9. Around that time, Madrid had around 1 million inhabitants; with the annexations, 330,000 residents were added, which is huge too. Currently, Madrid still has a lot of land on the outskirts where it can continue to expand.
Maybe. But this is standard behavior for all cities. They engulf neighboring populations. Doesn’t look like Franco did anything exceptional.
But there is a clear contrast with Barcelona. There, the opposite approach has been taken; Barcelona has no room to expand, it is encapsulated. I believe that decades later, the success of this strategy is evident. Barcelona and its power hub have gone from being clearly above Madrid to losing the race between the two cities.
Barcelona grew quite organically. But the mountains that surround it were not a problem centuries ago. They only started to bite in the 20th century.
Madrid is located in the middle of a very flat area and can extend infinitely, whereas Barcelona has mountains on one side and the sea on the other. However, I think there is a significant difference, which is very noticeable in one of the municipalities surrounding Barcelona: L'Hospitalet de Llobregat. It is a separate municipality, yet it is seamlessly integrated into the city's fabric. When you walk, you do not know when Barcelona ends and L'Hospitalet begins.
The fact that completely opposite solutions have been chosen for the two cities fits very well with what I have read from you more about Spain. The dynamics of power, center vs. periphery, plateau vs. coast. The decision to create a Greater Madrid is an endorsement on the radial and centralist model.
I believe that Spain is currently experiencing a unique moment in its history, where the wealth and economic power of the center is for the first time comparable to or greater than that of the coasts.
The same situation with Berlin: they united the surrounding municipalities with the Greater Berliner Act in the early 1900s, doubling its population. Even today Berlin feels like a collection of town, each neighborhood has its own centre, high street, city hall, main train station etc.
Regarding glued together cities like Barcelon and L‘Hospitalet, the same is for Frankfurt and Offenbach, they refused to unite.
But Spain *isn't* an old country. What we call Spain now only came together in 1492 with the conquest of Granada and the expulsion of the Moorish rulers. From the 8th century to at least the 11th it was al-Andalus. And, of course, Philip II made a very conscious decision to run the patchwork Habsburg monarchy differently from his father. Charles V spent his life travelling, and Philip II decided to stay in one place and have the bureaucracy come to him. Hence the Escorial.
I’m not sure what your point is!
Cities are much older than current nation-states.
Mostly they are, yes (exceptions like Brasilia, Canberra, Astana etc). But the essay mentioned Spain being an "old country", and it's a striking example of a country that isn't old, with specific reasons for its capital being what and where it is.
Spain belongs to a very small group of countries that are that old.
In hindsight, picking Mardrid as the capital instead of Toledo or Seville has made it much easier to quell the cries for independence from Catalonia and Basque country.
Why?
I should have formed that as a question and used "might" instead of "has".
The lack of physical interconnection from the southwest to the northeast zones in the form of waterways/roads could have promoted more divergent states to form?
The rivers don’t connect Madrid to the northeast, and the roads were made on purpose for Madrid. It would have been easy to make them go through Valladolid or Toledo. Sevilla is a different thing though, too far away, I agree.