Why is a nation's capital city usually the largest?

[Saiwania]

I'd be interested to learn the background on why Lhasa became the capital of Tibet? I take it that it is the best place for a city overall in that part of the world? The Tibetan Plateau is notable for being one of the most inhospitable places in the world to live in outside of Antarctica or northern Greenland. And the most dangerous region for aircraft to fly over if anything at all were to go wrong with the plane during flight. The average elevation is just too high with the mountains too many, with it being very remote relatively speaking in terms of inhabited places.

[The Archregimancy]

Gee, why doesn't that apply to
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
People's Republic of China
Côte d'Ivoire
Ecuador
Equatorial Guinea
Gambia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Myanmar
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Switzerland
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Vietnam
to name just a few.

In many of these countries, the capital was either specifically chosen for its location (Turkey, where until 1918, Konstantiyye/Istanbul was the capital and largest city, Brazil, and the United States), was historically the largest city (China), has historical status granted by once being the largest city (Italy), or the largest city was once capital of the country (Vietnam).

Those are just a few instances I can think of, but I hope that answers some of your question.

Again, I've gone into this point in some detail earlier in the thread, but the fact that some countries have capitals that aren't their largest city doesn't undermine the OP's point that a nation's capital city is usually the largest (by population).

As I also pointed out earlier in the thread, Of Zigarozia has simply lazily copied an alphabetical Wikipedia list of the 36 countries where the capital isn't the largest city without paying attention to any of the qualifiers contained in that list (such as the fact that Manila and Quezon City are part of the same metropolitan area) or its possible inaccuracies (by some counts Quito is larger than Guayaquil); so Of Zigarozia's post isn't nearly as clever as they think it is.

[Novus America]

Conversely, and this is just off the top of my head.

Stockholm
Madrid
London
Kabul
Nairobi
Havana
Buenos Aires
Santiago
Pyongyang
Prague
Budapest
Vienna
Mexico City
Rome

Rome is not the largest city in Italy, ftr, but it's generally true the largest city is the capital of the country.

Rome actually is the largest city in Italy, but not the largest metro area.
But true, the capital is the largest city in most countries, especially when the capital has been in the same place a very long time, and the country is older.

After the industrial revolution and the rise of modern capitalism the capital no longer need be the largest, nor governmental power needs to be the primarily source of economic power.
It seems when the capital is not the largest, it is often a newer city compared to the largest city.

As mentioned before the Philippines and Indonesia are looking into moving their capitals out of their largest city/metro area. So that might happen in some other places as well, when the old capital has become excessively overcrowded.

[The Archregimancy]

I'd be interested to learn the background on why Lhasa became the capital of Tibet? I take it that it is the best place for a city overall in that part of the world? The Tibetan Plateau is notable for being one of the most inhospitable places in the world to live in outside of Antarctica or northern Greenland. And the most dangerous region for aircraft to fly over if anything at all were to go wrong with the plane during flight. The average elevation is just too high with the mountains too many, with it being very remote relatively speaking in terms of inhabited places.

Lhasa has been one of the traditional capitals of Tibet since the 7th century, though from the 9th through 17th centuries it was an important religious centre rather than a political capital. It seems to have become the capital under the important Tibetan monarch Songtsen Gampo, who traditionally introduced Buddhism to Tibet (though it can be difficult to distinguish between tradition and fact in the emergence of the early Tibetan Empire). As to why Lhasa, quite apart from being central to the Tibetan Empire, it might be better to think of its 7th-century status as a prominent fortified palace (the site of the Potala) where the monarch happened to live rather than as a city - so more of a capital castle than a capital city. It became a political capital again in the 17th century on the back of its status as the site of some of the more important monasteries in Tibetan Buddhism. By the 17th century, Tibet had become a Buddhist theocracy, and it suited one of the early Dalai Lamas to centralise the political and religious centres of Tibet at the location of these monasteries. It's only from that point that the site of a fortified palace and significant Buddhist monasteries started to evolve into a city as we understand the term.

At the same time, it's worth noting that Tibetans likely have a different understanding of 'inhospitable' than we do. They seem to be uniquely suited, genetically speaking, to living in their high-altitude environment.

[San Lumen]

Conversely, and this is just off the top of my head.

Stockholm
Madrid
London
Kabul
Nairobi
Havana
Buenos Aires
Santiago
Pyongyang
Prague
Budapest
Vienna
Mexico City
Rome

Rome is not the largest city in Italy, ftr, but it's generally true the largest city is the capital of the country.

Rome is the largest city in Italy.

[Punished UMN]

In many of these countries, the capital was either specifically chosen for its location (Turkey, where until 1918, Konstantiyye/Istanbul was the capital and largest city, Brazil, and the United States), was historically the largest city (China), has historical status granted by once being the largest city (Italy), or the largest city was once capital of the country (Vietnam).

Those are just a few instances I can think of, but I hope that answers some of your question.

Again, I've gone into this point in some detail earlier in the thread, but the fact that some countries have capitals that aren't their largest city doesn't undermine the OP's point that a nation's capital city is usually the largest (by population).

As I also pointed out earlier in the thread, Of Zigarozia has simply lazily copied an alphabetical Wikipedia list of the 36 countries where the capital isn't the largest city without paying attention to any of the qualifiers contained in that list (such as the fact that Manila and Quezon City are part of the same metropolitan area) or its possible inaccuracies (by some counts Quito is larger than Guayaquil); so Of Zigarozia's post isn't nearly as clever as they think it is.

I was trying to make the same point as you by showing some historical reasons why some of those countries on the list don't have their largest city as their capital, to show that OP's point is generally-speaking right. Idk if you were trying to correct me or reinforce me, I just wanted to clarify because it's difficult to tell what the tone is over text.

[Punished UMN]

Rome is not the largest city in Italy, ftr, but it's generally true the largest city is the capital of the country.

Rome is the largest city in Italy.

You right, I confused Milan's metro area with its population.

[Wine-loving Chimps]

Because capitals are the centre of power in the country. Not only do they attract more economic activity and thus people by virtue of having the government be located there, but they also tend to be selected because they were already the country's premier city.

Gee, why doesn't that apply to
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
People's Republic of China
Côte d'Ivoire
Ecuador
Equatorial Guinea
Gambia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Myanmar
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Switzerland
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Vietnam
to name just a few.

I could name the same amount of countries, off the top of my head, in Europe alone, where the rule applies. What you have there is a list of the exceptions.

[Katganistan]

Certainly is not the case in the United States of America.

[Katganistan]

I was thinking about this lately and wondering what the reason for it is. I know there are exceptions but in many counties the seat of government is the largest city. You can find this often in administrative division capitals too.

Is there something about it being the capital that makes people gravitate to it? I can see the appeal of wanting to be near the seat of government as it would likely have more opportunity than other cities. Most capital cites are centrally located and easily assessable by road, train or air which makes perfect sense for a seat of government. It doesn't explain though why it's more often than not the biggest city. Your thoughts?

I'd like to see statistics. I mean, you could be right, after all, New York City is the capital of New York State, Miami is the capital of Florida, Houston is the capital of Texas, Los Angeles is the capital of California, Seattle the capital of Washington State, Portland of Oregon, Chicago of Illinois, Cincinnati of Ohio, Philadelphia of Pennsylvania, just to name a few.

But Sacramento, and not Los Angeles, is the capital of California.

[San Lumen]

Certainly is not the case in the United States of America.

The US is unusual in that regard. In many states they didn’t want the largest city to have all the power.

[Auze]

Gee, why doesn't that apply to
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
People's Republic of China
Côte d'Ivoire
Ecuador
Equatorial Guinea
Gambia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Myanmar
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Switzerland
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Vietnam
to name just a few.

Australia: They couldn't decide between Sydney and Melbourne. Canberra was built between the two
Belize: They wanted to move to a place that was less prone to being obliterated by hurricanes (one which destroyed 70% of Belize City)
Brazil: They wanted easier control and development of the rest of the country, so it was founded in a central location
Burundi: Gitenga is the historical capital of the Kingdom of Burundi (Bujumbura is relatively recent), it is also in a more central location.
Cameroon: Both its capital and current largest city are roughly the same size. The French just preferred one over the other.
Canada: Ottawa was chosen due to being in between several larger cities and the French and English areas of Canada.
People's Republic of China: Beijing is the historical capital and one of the largest cities, among other reasons.
Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast: Yamoussoukro was the hometown of the president who made it the capital. The largest city is still effectively the capital for most purposes.
Ecuador: Quito is the largest city in Ecuador and its capital
Equatorial Guinea: Malabo is the oldest city and the colonial capital, nobody ever bothered to change it.
The Gambia: Once again, was the first city established in colonial times, and they didn't really feel the need to change it.
Federated States of Micronesia: They decided to build a dedicated capital for the state.
Morocco: Fes was unstable after the French took over, so they moved the capital to Rabat.
Myanmar: The official reason was that Yangon was too crowded, and the new capital would be central. I'm not going to argue with a military junta on this issue, so sure.
New Zealand: They wanted to make sure that the North and South islands would stay united, so the capital was to be placed on a city in the strait.
Nigeria: Lagos was crowded and they didn't want to show favoritism to any ethnic group, so a city was established in a central area.
Pakistan: They wanted an area less exposed to attacks and to keep business and government separate.
Palau: They wanted a dedicated capital and decided to copy Micronesia's homework.
Switzerland: The Swiss Confederation doesn't have a capital, Bern was made the de facto capital when it was the largest canton in terms of population.
Tanzania: They tried to fix the largest city, gave up, and just decided to move the capital to a more central location.
Trinidad and Tobago: Colonial capitals continue.
Turkey: Some other person already explained this one, skip.
United Arab Emirates: It was part of a compromise between Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
United States of America: It was built to make sure neither the North nor the South had too much power.
Vietnam: It was the capital of North Vietnam, which won the war.
That was way too much work for something not many will read. I will not do this for the next list that shows up.

[San Lumen]

Gee, why doesn't that apply to
Australia
Belize
Brazil
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
People's Republic of China
Côte d'Ivoire
Ecuador
Equatorial Guinea
Gambia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Myanmar
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Switzerland
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Vietnam
to name just a few.

Equatorial Guinea: Malabo is the oldest city and the colonial capital, nobody ever bothered to change it.

.

Malabo wont be the capital of Equatorial Guinea for much longer. A new capital on the mainland called Ciudad de Le Paz is under construction.

[The Archregimancy]

Again, I've gone into this point in some detail earlier in the thread, but the fact that some countries have capitals that aren't their largest city doesn't undermine the OP's point that a nation's capital city is usually the largest (by population).

As I also pointed out earlier in the thread, Of Zigarozia has simply lazily copied an alphabetical Wikipedia list of the 36 countries where the capital isn't the largest city without paying attention to any of the qualifiers contained in that list (such as the fact that Manila and Quezon City are part of the same metropolitan area) or its possible inaccuracies (by some counts Quito is larger than Guayaquil); so Of Zigarozia's post isn't nearly as clever as they think it is.

I was trying to make the same point as you by showing some historical reasons why some of those countries on the list don't have their largest city as their capital, to show that OP's point is generally-speaking right. Idk if you were trying to correct me or reinforce me, I just wanted to clarify because it's difficult to tell what the tone is over text.

Leaning more towards reinforcing than correcting; the real point was that the post you were replying to was indeed flawed - but I was placing a different emphasis on why it was flawed.

[San Lumen]

I was trying to make the same point as you by showing some historical reasons why some of those countries on the list don't have their largest city as their capital, to show that OP's point is generally-speaking right. Idk if you were trying to correct me or reinforce me, I just wanted to clarify because it's difficult to tell what the tone is over text.

Leaning more towards reinforcing than correcting; the real point was that the post you were replying to was indeed flawed - but I was placing a different emphasis on why it was flawed.

In most cases were the capital isnt the largest city its due to special circumstances or was moved.

[Lady Scylla]

I was thinking about this lately and wondering what the reason for it is. I know there are exceptions but in many countries the seat of government is the largest city. You can find this often in administrative division capitals too.

Is there something about it being the capital that makes people gravitate to it? I can see the appeal of wanting to be near the seat of government as it would likely have more opportunity than other cities. Most capital cites are centrally located and easily assessable by road, train or air which makes perfect sense for a seat of government. It doesn't explain though why it's more often than not the biggest city. Your thoughts?

It's the centre of commerce and politics for a nation usually, and because of this there's a major gravitation towards it by a population. Rome is a good example of this in ancient times, and when Constantinople was founded, Rome's population dwindled.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

There are six options for China's capital.The reason why Beijing stands out is that it's military.
Control here can control the whole northern part of China militarily and is easy to defend.It is difficult for Shanghai and Guangzhou to defend against landing operations and air strikes from the Pacific.It is difficult for Harbin to defend against the attack of the armored forces in the direction of the Soviet Union.Several other alternative cities are vulnerable to flooding
By the way, ‘Beijing’ means the capital of the north,'Nanjing' means the capital of the south.Sometimes we have four or five capitals.Japan has no capital in the sense of law.Tokyo means the capital of the east and Kyoto means the capital.They are pronounced in Japanese with the same chinese characters 'Dongjing' and 'Jing'.
South Africa has three capitals.Politics, economy and justice have their own capitals

[San Lumen]

There are six options for China's capital.The reason why Beijing stands out is that it's military.
Control here can control the whole northern part of China militarily and is easy to defend.It is difficult for Shanghai and Guangzhou to defend against landing operations and air strikes from the Pacific.It is difficult for Harbin to defend against the attack of the armored forces in the direction of the Soviet Union.Several other alternative cities are vulnerable to flooding
By the way, ‘Beijing’ means the capital of the north,'Nanjing' means the capital of the south.Sometimes we have four or five capitals.Japan has no capital in the sense of law.Tokyo means the capital of the east and Kyoto means the capital.They are pronounced in Japanese with the same chinese characters 'Dongjing' and 'Jing'.
South Africa has three capitals.Politics, economy and justice have their own capitals

Tokyo isn’t officially the capital in Japanese law?


South Africa is unique. They didn’t want one region having all the power.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

There are six options for China's capital.The reason why Beijing stands out is that it's military.
Control here can control the whole northern part of China militarily and is easy to defend.It is difficult for Shanghai and Guangzhou to defend against landing operations and air strikes from the Pacific.It is difficult for Harbin to defend against the attack of the armored forces in the direction of the Soviet Union.Several other alternative cities are vulnerable to flooding
By the way, ‘Beijing’ means the capital of the north,'Nanjing' means the capital of the south.Sometimes we have four or five capitals.Japan has no capital in the sense of law.Tokyo means the capital of the east and Kyoto means the capital.They are pronounced in Japanese with the same chinese characters 'Dongjing' and 'Jing'.
South Africa has three capitals.Politics, economy and justice have their own capitals

Tokyo isn’t officially the capital in Japanese law?


South Africa is unique. They didn’t want one region having all the power.

Tokyo isn’t.It's not written into the law.In 1950, a capital construction law about building the capital mentioned Tokyo as the capital, but it was repealed in 1956.You can search why Tokyo is not the capital of Japan

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Bonn is the capital of West Germany and Germany until 1999.Not Hamburg, not Cologne, not Frankfurt, not Munich.In 2013, Bonn only had a population of 300,000

[Vistulange]

Bonn is the capital of West Germany and Germany until 1999.Not Hamburg, not Cologne, not Frankfurt, not Munich.In 2013, Bonn only had a population of 300,000

Bonn is a bit of a specific case. It was intentionally chosen as a small, relatively unimportant city so that it wouldn't be ingrained in people's minds as the capital of Germany, which the West Germans considered to be Berlin, and considered Bonn to merely be a temporary measure until everything could go back to normal. Had they chosen, say, Hamburg or Munich, far larger, populous, notable, and important cities, those could easily have turned into "permanent" capitals in people's perceptions within a generation.

[Kowani]

I'd like to see statistics. I mean, you could be right, after all, New York City is the capital of New York State, Miami is the capital of Florida, Houston is the capital of Texas, Los Angeles is the capital of California, Seattle the capital of Washington State, Portland of Oregon, Chicago of Illinois, Cincinnati of Ohio, Philadelphia of Pennsylvania, just to name a few.

But Sacramento, and not Los Angeles, is the capital of California.

Sacramento was chosen during the Gold Rush Era, when it was the center of most business activity due to being a starting point for the Transcontinental Railroad.

[The Archregimancy]

I was thinking about this lately and wondering what the reason for it is. I know there are exceptions but in many countries the seat of government is the largest city. You can find this often in administrative division capitals too.

Is there something about it being the capital that makes people gravitate to it? I can see the appeal of wanting to be near the seat of government as it would likely have more opportunity than other cities. Most capital cites are centrally located and easily assessable by road, train or air which makes perfect sense for a seat of government. It doesn't explain though why it's more often than not the biggest city. Your thoughts?

It's the centre of commerce and politics for a nation usually, and because of this there's a major gravitation towards it by a population. Rome is a good example of this in ancient times, and when Constantinople was founded, Rome's population dwindled.

You mistake cause and effect here.

Rome was already dwindling in importance when Constantine founded his New Rome. Under Diocletian's tetrarchy, the capitals were Nicomedia (Izmit), Milan, Trier, and Sirmium (near Belgrade). After Constantine, the Empire was only rarely united under a single ruler, and the Western half was usually ruled from Milan or, later, Ravenna; so the status of Constantinople as the Eastern half's capital wasn't particularly relevant to the decline of Rome in the West.

Rome declined because its location was ill-suited to the administration of an Empire focused on military challenges on the eastern frontier with Persia and the Rhine frontier with the Germanic peoples. Constantine's designation of Byzantium/Constantinople as the site of the New Rome was symptom rather than cause; Rome had already lost its status as de facto capital at this point - though it would continue to be a de jure capital with significant symbolic status (as shown both by reaction to its sack in the 5th century, and Belisarius's efforts to secure the city in the 6th century).

[San Lumen]

But Sacramento, and not Los Angeles, is the capital of California.

Sacramento was chosen during the Gold Rush Era, when it was the center of most business activity due to being a starting point for the Transcontinental Railroad.

I think Farn was being sarcastic but you are correct about why Sacramento is the capital.