Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moscow and St. Petersburg, if I'm not mistaken, are both in the very westernmost out of Russia's 11 time zones.
Lisbon = west of portugal
Amsterdam = west of netherlands
Prague = west of czech.
Istanbul (really huge metropolis) = very west end of Turkey
Tehran (also huge metropolis) = northwest of Iran
Lima (also very populous) = west of Peru
Moscow and St. Petersburg, if I'm not mistaken, are both in the very westernmost out of Russia's 11 time zones.
Lisbon = west of portugal
Amsterdam = west of netherlands
Prague = west of czech.
Istanbul (really huge metropolis) = very west end of Turkey
Tehran (also huge metropolis) = northwest of Iran
Lima (also very populous) = west of Peru
The capital of Turkey is Ankara, not Istanbul. Back when Hungary was Ottoman territory and Istanbul was the capital, it was much more centrally located. Though back when it was Constantinople and the capital of the entire Roman Empire, it definitely wasn't.
The OP specifically talks about capitals, not metropolises.
I think it could actually have to do with the fact that in many countries the more fertile, lowland river valleys are in the east.
I think the importance of this as a factor is rather a bit off/late in the timeline of human history. Forming big cities/capitals/locuses of control near where the fertile land is, would apply to ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt or China, but not so much for capitals of a colony or nation state that came into existence or became so just a few hundred years ago, and was developed for a number of strategic or political reasons.
At least for many of the "newer" countries, they were colonized from east to west, as the colonial power was located to the east and that is where colonists arrived from and spread across the country. So the east was often settled first and this is where the capital was established.
I think this is probably the major factor in the New World countries, be they Canada, the US, Australia, Brazil etc. (the major influence from pattern of settlement is probably the big thing that explains this trend they've got in common). Russia, being a European-located power that expanded into Asia by land, provides the opposite pattern.
Other than that, I can't see as much of an east-west influence.
I think capitals being on the edge/periphery of a country could be a general trend, though then again, looking at an atlas, and thinking it a second time I'm not sure if any particular pattern jumps out now. I guess (the seat of governments or if you put it far back enough, empires), you could think of them as the headquarters of a power that expanded through either conquest or acquisition of new territories.
Also, back in the day, when a lot more neighbouring countries weren't so buddy-buddy compared to now (eg. in Europe), every country had to watch its back or else it'd risk getting captured, so strategic placement relative to the other countries' capitals must have been a great deal.
Capitals that are capitals in part chosen for their long historical precedent and deep influence (Rome, Athens or Jerusalem) far before their modern nation state was formed, should likely be treated differently than a very recently planned one in a settler nation like Ottawa or Canberra.
The capital of Thailand is Bangkok which is located to the south of the main body of the country along the Chao Phraya river which is very near the Gulf of Thailand. Centuries earlier, the capital was at Ayutthaya, also along the Chao Phraya river, but located farther north. http://images.nationmaster.com/image...a/thailand.jpg
The capitals of Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam (sort of), and Malaysia are not located on the east side of the countries either, nor is the capital of India, nor is the capital of Iran.
I don't see it, really. It seems to be a decent split down the middle depending on what countries you count as major nor not, and even if there was a leaning towards the east side, it's statistically insignificant with a lot on the west side or in central regions.
I've noticed this with the large new world countries. I put it down to the way they were colonised.
The eastern parts had greater colonial development, and had the largest concentrations of population.
In the case of the US, everything west of the Mississippi wasn't even part of the US at the time Washington DC was being built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
