Vice Capital: Part I - Capitals of the World

Capitals are political and administrative centres. Intuitively, one would think that they are also centrally located - as well as the biggest, most significant economic and cultural hubs of their respective countries. Significance (just like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. It is safe to presume that most people would believe that their hometown is as important (and beautiful) as any other - so, any "city rating" would be subjective. However, size and location are objective - and it's due to one or the other that many countries would choose their capital city. In case of the New World - younger countries outside of Europe and Asia founded and populated by European immigrants - such choices would often imply a compromise. For instance, Canberra was agreed upon to avoid offending either Sydney or Melbourne by preferring the other. Likewise, Ottawa served to reconcile such more established household names as Montreal and Toronto. Washington DC got the nod at the expense of Philadelphia to get southern states on board, and Wellington took over from Auckland in 1865 to achieve the same with the South Island that felt too remote from, and somewhat neglected by, the more northerly seat of power. Facing similar dilemmas, some countries decided to be more creative and went with "both" rather than "neither" - that's how Bolivia ended up with two capital cities, La Paz and Sucre, the latter bearing a somewhat confusing title of the "constitutional capital". South Africa joined in and, not to be outdone, produced no less than three capitals - Pretoria, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. Asian creativity was as striking: known for its rigid social hierarchies, the continent's heavyweights just deferred to their rulers. In other words, both Chinese and Japanese capital cities simply moved with the Emperors (or Shoguns), geography and other considerations being secondary to the ruler's personal preferences. That left Europe as the only continent that partially answered the above-mentioned description of the "capital city" concept.

Centralization of power had over centuries drawn wealth and talent to quite a few European capitals and indeed turned them into the economic heart and cultural soul of their respective countries. Realistically speaking, it's hard for any English city to compete with London, or French one - with Paris, and Prague, Budapest, Amsterdam, Vienna, and many more capital cities in Europe arguably enjoy a similar super-status. The status that often but not always comes with being at or near the country's geographical centre. The most extreme exception is likely Vienna that used be the capital of a huge Empire - and located right in the middle of it. Then the "Springtime of Nations" and WWI happened, and the empire was gone but the city remained where it was - 40 kilometers away from Austrian eastern border! At the other end of the "capital city status" spectrum is Italy where almost every major city used to be its own state. Consequently, the country could never defer to just one city, even as ancient as Rome, and is bound to see its capital as not even first among equals but rather as equal among equals. Germany and Switzerland boasting a rich history of independent, even if brought under the same roof as parts of a confederation, states/cantons, are in about the same position. 

The easiest way to define the last group of European countries, in regards to their capital cities' status, is to apply what might be called an "and test". That is, to try pairing up the name of any given capital with just one other city in the same country. In most cases, such an attempt would end up with "why not such-and-such instead?". Paris and Lyon - why not Bordeaux or Marseille? London and Liverpool - why not not Manchester or Newcastle? However, there are at least two European countries where one - and just one - city would match the country's capital stroke for stroke, thus creating perfect harmony wherever the two are mentioned together. Madrid AND Barcelona. Lisbon AND Porto.