We are so accustomed to the idea of one country-one capital that we forget that this is a historically recent phenomenon. There are, it is true, modern nations that have "always" had one capital. Paris has been the capital of France since the 9th century. London became the political center of England with the Norman conquest in the 11th century. Lisbon has been Portugal's capital since its formation as a geographical entity in the mid-13th century. Vienna became the capital of Austria in the late-13th century. Stockholm has been the Swedish capital since 1436 and Copenhagen that of Denmark since 1445. Germany poses a particular set of circumstances. Its capital, Berlin, had become the capital of Brandenburg in 1486, a condition it retained when Brandenburg became the kingdom of Prussia, which begat Germany in 1871. Madrid only became the capital of Spain ca 1500. These are all capitals of European states with sovereign existences of many centuries. But this does not mean that the one-capital norm holds for all of European history. Moscow grew to uncontested political prominence in Russia during the 15th century, but in the early 18th century the capital was moved to St. Petersburg, then moved by the Soviets back to Moscow in 1918. Even today, the Netherlands has two capitals: the royal capital Amsterdam and the seat of government The Hague.

Outside of Europe, the one-state-one-capital rule is exceptional, although there are exceptions to the exception. Cairo was founded in the 10th century, but Egypt's independent existence ended with the Ottoman conquest in the 16th century and resumed only by fits and starts in the 20th century. If it is only duration that is considered, Muslim Egypt's original capital, al Fustat, today an integral part of Cairo, was founded in the 7th century. Istanbul became the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453, but before this date the Ottomans had two capitals, one, Bursa, in western Anatolia, and, another, Edirne (Adrianople), in Thrace. With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, its successor state, established its capital in Ankara. Today's Jakarta (Batavia until 1949) has been the capital of, first, the Dutch East Indies, and then independent Indonesia, since the early 16th century. As before colonialist rule the East Indies had no political center at all, the one-capital norm can be considered a result of colonialism. As we shall see, this is of great historical importance.

The long climb of Beijing to capitaldom

Neither China nor Japan were ever colonies of Europe. But neither are their histories characterized by having one capital. Until a minor Chinese kingdom known as Liao (early 10th century) made the site of Beijing a capital, the capitals of China since very ancient times were Anyang, Xi'an, Luoyang, Kaifeng, and Hangzhou. It was the founder of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Kublai Khan, who first made Beijing a great capital, which he named Tatu, also known as Khanbalik or Cambaluk (13th century). The Ming in the 14th century definitely established Beijing as the Chinese capital, which it has remained with an interlude during the 20th century when, because of Japanese aggression, it was transferred first to Nanjing and then to Chongqing. As to Japan, its first capital was Nara. In the 8th century, the capital was moved to Kyoto until the 12th century when it was established in Kamakura, from where in the early 17th century it was moved to Tokyo (then and until the 19th century known as Edo).

In Antiquity the one-capital norm is a relative quantity. Mesopotamia had periods of unification during which the political center shifted to and from Babylonia and Assyria. Babylonia usually had Babylon as its center, but not always, and in Assyria the original capital, Assur, was relegated by other cities, particularly Nineveh. Elam had two or three capitals. Pharaonic Egypt had many capitals but ultimately power resided either in Thebes in the south or Memphis in the north (near modern Cairo). The Achaemenid empire had four capitals, Persepolis being the most famous. The successor Parthian and Sasanid empires all had different capitals. Anatolia never had a political center until the rise of the Ottomans. Alexander formed the only true Greek empire, but it only lasted during its creator's brief lifetime and had no capital at all, although it did have a centralizing influence during the following Hellenistic period: Alexandria became the capital of Egypt and the Greeks tended to create some one-capital territorial states, notably Macedonia and Epirus.

Even Rome, the epitome in Antiquity of a centralized empire, began to share out the power inherent in capitaldom in the 4th century. Emperor Constantine the Great tried to keep disgregation in check by creating two capitals: Rome and Constantinople, but in his time Milan (then Mediolanum) also functioned as capital, as did important provincial centers all over the empire such as Treveris (Trier). When Christianity became official (313), there already existed four patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria), which, given the deteriorating political condition of the empire, functioned as bases of political stability. It could be argued that multicapitals were inevitable in large but technologically primitive empires, but the phenomenon is not limited to ancient Rome, or to the Carolingian Empire, which only under Charlemagne could be said to have had a political center, in Aachen or Aix-la-Chapelle.

The search for a capital in Persia and Afghanistan

India never had a true capital. Delhi became the principal Muslim political center in the subcontinent (13th century), but Muslim rule never even came close to unifying India. Muslim conquerors usually went as far as where they could to create sultanates of their own. Aurangzeb's conquests lasted, like Alexander's, to the end of his reign (1707). Besides, Muslim rulers were viscerally opposed to Hinduism, most of their subjects (except in the Indus river valley) were Hindus, and the more they leaned on them the more resistant Hinduism became. At the other end of the world, in the Holy Roman Empire, founded in the 10th century, there was as much resistance to centralization as in India even though, over the centuries, the technical means for unification were greater and, until the Protestant reformation (16th century), all its independent rulers shared one religion.

There were other areas of the world where Europe did not rule but political centralization was unattainable and there were as many capitals as dynasties. These were mostly Muslim regions. With the destruction of the Sasanid empire (7th century), Persia lost its national bearings. It recovered some sense of nationhood with the rise of the Safavids (16th century), but its subsequent political history was turbulent and it was not until 1788 that Tehran became the Iranian capital. The situation of Afghanistan was even more complicated because, unlike Persia, it did not have single predominant linguistic or ethnic roots. Afghans spoke different Indo-Iranian languages. To this diversity was added an important Turkic component. Persian culture assimilated foreign influences. Foreign influences prevented the formation of anything resembling Afghan nationhood. The principal Afghan centers of political power were Kandahar, where Pashtun was spoken, and Herat, where the language was a form of Persian called Dari. By exploiting mutual antagonisms, the Durrani dynasty made Afghanistan separate from Persia (18th century). But it was only in 1828 that Kabul became the Afghan capital.

Persia and Afghanistan were extremely difficult to annex by European colonialism. The Maghreb, or the Muslim territory from Libya to Morocco (originally extensive to Muslim Spain), had its particularities. The territory of modern Tunisia is comparatively small and so there were only two important centers of power: Kairouan and Tunis. After the Christians expelled the Muslims from the Iberian peninsula, they went for the Maghreb. Some coastal cities were relatively easy prey, but when the Portuguese ventured into the interior of Morocco they were decimated at Alcazarquivir (1578). The Spanish hold on Algerian and Tunisian ports was not too secure either and the Ottoman Empire, after annexing Egypt, extended its maritime power as far as Algeria. Morocco was neglected because the Ibero-Christian presence on its coast was stronger and because Morocco's craggy interior made conquest difficult. The Maghrebian coast that the Turks invaded did not coalesce. Algeria divided into autonomous statelets: Algiers, Oran, Tilimsen, Bejaia, and Mascara. The Algerian ports (Algiers and Oran), Tunis, and Libyan Tripoli and Benghazi became known as the Barbary Coast. The Americans wasted time trying to subdue them. France conquered Algeria (1830-1848). Morocco had five capital cities: Fez, Tangier, Marrakech (from which it got its name), Meknès, and Rabat. Among European powers, France had first dibs on the Maghreb and after Algeria, where it made Algiers the capital, it colonialized Tunisia (capital Tunis) in 1883 and Morocco (capital Rabat) in 1912.

Colonialism and the one-capital norm

Multicapitals were also characteristics of non-Muslim regions. Myanmar has always been one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. Before Yangon (Rangoon) became its capital (ca1760), depending on the fortunes of ethnic rivalries, Myanmar had at least the following capital cities or principal political centers: Ligor, Thaton, Sriskshetra, Bagan, Bassein, Toungoo, Martaban, Pegu, Ava, and Prome. When the Burmese finally became predominant, the British were on the rise in India and Malaya and they encroached from west and east forcing the Burmese to move their capital to Mandalay (1860). The British annexed Mandalay in 1886, by which time they had already designated Yangon as the capital of Burma. 

Thailand's process was different. The Thais were relative newcomers to South East Asia from Yunnan. They first founded Sukhotai (late 13th century), then expanded south to Ayutthaya (14th century). The aggressive Thais sacked Angkor and forced the Cambodians to move their capital to Pnom Penh. The Thais were in turn the object of Burmese aggression (18th century) and they abandoned Ayutthaya for Thon Buri (1777), finally fixing their capital in Bangkok across the Chao-Phraya river. The British annexation of Burma eliminated the enemy on Thailand's western flank.

The French were then building Indo-China. They had designs on Thailand and on Laos. Taking Laos would give them a border on Myanmar. In 1863, Cambodia was made a French protectorate and Angkor was reclaimed although Phnom Penh was retained as capital and re-designed along French urban norms. In exchange for keeping their hands off Thailand, the French were given by the British the green light for the annexation of Laos in 1893. Laos had never been one kingdom. It had at least three capitals and the French chose one of them: Vientiane (Vien Chang).

That the one-capital norm is a byproduct of European colonialism is patent in the Western Hemisphere. The USA always intended to have one capital, but while Washington was being built the federal government functioned in New York and in Philadelphia. As each Latin American country became independent it already had a capital inherited from colonial times. The one exception was, and still is, Bolivia, where La Paz is the seat of government and Sucre hosts the supreme court. The one-capital rule was indispensable as former British dependencies federated. Bytown in Canada was renamed Ottawa and made the federal capital in 1858. Australia had two capitals, Sydney and Melbourne, until Canberra (derived from an aboriginal name) was inaugurated in 1927. By then, of course, all of Africa was shared out and each European dependency had one capital. The exception, South Africa, had three: Pretoria (seat of government), Cape Town (parliament), and Bloemfontein (supreme judiciary). India too had a purpose-built capital city, New Delhi, but this was not to accommodate federalism as to exalt British imperialism (even to making the Union Jack the urban pattern for the Indian capital). The case of British Malaya did involve federalism. Kuala Lumpur had been settled only after 1850. It was located in Selangor, the least important of the Malay dependencies. To obviate opposition from older Malayan urban centers, the British chose Kuala Lumpur, despite its inauspicious name ("muddy river"), as the capital of Malaya, later of Malaysia.

Politics and not history is behind one country-one capital

We said at the beginning that we are accustomed to one-country/one-capital. From this review, it is obvious that what we are accustomed to is to the nation-state. But our review of multicapitals, does have its residuary benefits. The modern nation-state was born in Europe. It denotes the principle of the centralization of power. Sometimes a city itself determines that it should be a capital. Athens had to be the capital of Greece when the latter gained its independence (1829). Riyadh may be the official capital, but Mecca is the real heart of Saudi Arabia. When Israel was born, old Jerusalem remained under Jordanian control and Tel Aviv was the capital. In 1967, Israel expelled Jordan from Jerusalem and inevitably the city of David and Solomon became its capital. But capitals are in essence the product of politics and international politics determined that, despite Israel's determination, most of the world persists in maintaining its embassies in Tel Aviv.

Cities per se are so unimportant in the matter of capitaldom that when Lithuania was re-born (1918) after three and a half centuries, it did not make a big fuss when Poland annexed its traditional capital, Vilnius, which was a mainly Jewish city. In Bulgaria, Plovdiv and Varna were more historically meaningful than Sofia, which was nearer to Macedonia (once a Bulgarian province). And at least four major countries in the Post-War have changed capitals by government decree: Brazil (from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia in 1960), Pakistan (from Rawalpindi to Islamabad in 1970), Tanzania (from Dar-es-Salaam to Dodoma in 1990), and Nigeria (from Lagos to Abuja in 1991).

It only seems then as if politics required that each state have one capital. Different political processes and circumstances determined which cities would attain the rank of capitals. But ultimately it is the course of world history that has resulted in the one-country/one-capital rule and it is only from a relatively modern perspective that it seems as if multicapitals were an anomaly and not the historical norm.