Madrid is quite unique:
• No river
• Very recent
• Tiny when it became a capital
So why?
These are the rivers of other big European cities & capitals: huge and calm. Why?
Because rivers allowed:
• Drinking
• Irrigation ➡️ food ➡️ population
• Trade: Transport is much cheaper than on roads, so much more trade and wealth
You can see the importance of rivers by the population density in France: it follows the course of rivers! You can tell the confluence of big rivers because they host the biggest population centers—natural markets to trade across the meeting rivers
Compare with Madrid's main river
Do you know its name? No, because it's puny
It's weak. An affront on capital rivers. A feeble stream
Low bridges. Full of sandbars. Why? No point in clearing them. The only thing that navigates the Manzanares is its inferiority complex
If Madrid had been blessed with a huge river, it would have been a huge city in ancient times. But no. In fact, it's a very recent city
Compare its founding with that of other capitals of countries occupied by the Romans. Most are 2k+ y old. Madrid? Barely 1k y old
When it was selected as capital, it wasn't the 1st, or the 2nd, or even the 3rd biggest city in Spain. It was the 10th! Barely over 10k people. A small town!
Back then, most capitals were the biggest, most powerful, best placed city. Why not in Spain?
Blame this guy
Philip II of Spain—who also gave name to the Philippines. Until the 1560s, Spain had an itinerant court. He wanted to fix it in a city. Where?
He had to deal with 2 realities. One was his empire: He needed a capital that was close enough to everything. That was Spain, which was also among the richest parts of his empire.
So he wanted a capital in Spain
This is Spain
What do you notice?
It's criss-crossed with mountain ranges. This has serious consequences
• Spain has a lot of rivers separated from each other by these mountain ranges. This means they're smaller than its Northern Europe equivalents
• Because they go through all these mountains, they aren't navigable*. They couldn't be used much for trade
So no big central city
It also means there are few plains. The few on the coast all developed big populations since Roman times. Barcelona, Valencia, Huelva, Cadiz... All predate the Roman!
This means Spain was (and is) made of islands of coastal population separated by mountains
Another thing to notice: It's surrounded by coasts, but each coast had its own pbms:
• Mediterranean: Deal with the colonies in Italy / Greece and fend off Muslim attacks
• Southwest: Deal with Spain's American colonies
• North: Deal with British attacks & Flemish colonies
Then there are the 2 central plateaux ("mesetas") and the Ebro Valley.
The king had to find a place that connected them all as best as possible.
I mentioned before the king had an itinerant court until then. This was the reason: Too many disconnected power centers
So what was the best connected place in the country at the time?
The red areas in the map below. Noticve they include Madrid and Toledo—which was one of the biggest and most powerful cities at the time.
So why not Toledo as a capital?
This is Toledo. Majestic, on a hill surrounded by the Tajo river
But:
• Streets are small, which is not ideal for travel with your court—and your personal guard
• You can’t grow the city much further
• You can’t determine its urbanism
And Philip II wanted to build. He had visited his Italian and Flemish possessions and wanted to bring its architecture. This is why he built the Escorial Palace
He wanted to do the same with his new capital
Madrid had another benefit: It had a power void.
Toledo and Valladolid had noble and religious leaders who could challenge the king
Not Madrid, which was smaller and had recently lost many nobles due to a failed revolt.
The king had confiscated their lands in Madrid
Madrid had other small benefits:
• Built on a defensible position
• Reliable water from the mountain range
• Air from the mountains (back then, they thought they were the cure against recurring epidemics)
• Forests for hunting
So Philip II chose Madrid in 1561
Once capital, the entire communications network had to be rewired to make Madrid more central. That was the point of the capital after all—allow easy access to all the territory.
Notice how so many Roman road paths have been conserved, but the central part is completely new
This happened over the centuries
More recently, we can see the roads plan of 1926, the highways plan of 1985, the current railroads... Most cross in Madrid
The goal of Madrid's airport was to do the same connecting Spain with the world. It's now the 5th busiest airport in Europe
So Madrid is unique, because its geography had very little to offer—except it was central
But that centrality made it a capital
That centrality gave it infrastructure
That infrastructure made it the most connected place in Spain, hence the biggest market, hence the biggest city
If you want to know more, I have an upcoming article on Madrid. Sign up to the free newsletter to receive it.
And follow me for more threads like that! One every week/month unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/subscribe
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. Los Angeles:
• Trading hub between the world (Pacific) and the US (railways)
• Weather + biggest coastal valley on the Pacific➡️agriculture & cheap building
• Oil
• Landscapes + far from the East Coast centers of power➡️Attracted the film industry
People think we must shrink the world's population to be happy, but they're wrong
A world with shrinking population would be decaying, poor, brutal, violent, hopeless
A world with 100 billion people would be dynamic, rich, innovative, peaceful, hopeful
🧵
1. In the last 2 centuries, the world got better as the population exploded:
• Richer
• Live older
• Lower child mortality
• Fewer homicides
• Fewer war deaths
• Fewer hours worked
• Lower share of poor people
And much more: fewer infections, diseases, accidents. More racial equality, sexual equality. Instant access to all the knowledge in the world. We can go anywhere, whenever we want...
We can raise our population on Earth from 8 billion to 100B humans if we want to
Would we starve?
Be too crowded?
Would pollution explode?
Ecosystems collapse?
No! Don't believe alarmist degrowthers. This is why they're wrong: 🧵
Degrowthers put a label to "how many humans can the Earth sustain": carrying capacity
Their estimates vary wildly
Wait, what? What a surprise, the mode of their estimates is 8B—exactly the current number of ppl on Earth
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Or they lack imagination: OMG the Earth is already on the brink. Surely not one more soul fits here!
And then they try to find out what limits we might be hitting. Their most common fears are: 1. Room 2. Food 3. Water 4. Energy 5. Pollution 6. Resources
Let's look at each:
Can desalinated water deliver a future of infinite water?
Yes!
• It's cheap
• It will get even cheaper
• Limited pollution
• Some countries already live off of it
We can transform deserts into paradise. And some countries are already on that path:🧵
Crazy fact:
Over half of Israel's freshwater is desalinated from the Mediterranean!
And the vast majority of its tap water is desalinated too!
And it costs less than municipal water in a city like LA!
It's not the only country. Saudi Arabia is the biggest desalinator in the world. 50% of its drinking water is desalinated. It's 30% in Singapore, a majority of water in the UAE...
What if we applied this, but at scale across the world?
President-elect @realDonaldTrump could own the environmentalists by solving global warming on his first day in office, and do it for 0.1% of current climate investments
Here's how: sulfate injection 🧵
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
Beata Halassy got cancer in 2016, then again in 2018, and again in 2020. That looked awfully bad. She knew if she continued in the traditional route, her cancer might eventually prevail. So she decided to try what she knew about: viruses
Here's the theory: 1. Select a virus that is likely to attack your target cancer cells 2. Because cancer cells neutralize the immune system, they're more likely to be killed by viruses than healthy cells