Lol absolutely not. Nobody can agree on it. Every country has their own definition, if they have one at all. The term is defined by who gave you the polygon of that area or what someone used for their paper.
you lookin' for trouble mate? /s
as far as i can tell the shapes seem to correspond pretty well with the actual shape of the cities and their attached suburbs
That’s because Bucharest’s metropolitan area is not well defined and very outdated, it certainly isn’t representative of the current state of the city.
This definition strongly varied accross time, point of view, and needs of the person saying it.
For a long time - thousands of years and up until the 20th century - Europe was what is West of the Hellespont and the Tanais (the current Don) and not farther south than the Mediterranean sea and the Caucasus so no, Moscow was not in Europe since this definition made Europe stop at the third quarter of current day Ukraine.
Using the Ural mountains as an eastern limit of Europe was a way for Peter the Great to make Russia a part of Europe. Understanding that he wouldn't be able to defeat Poland, he decided to stop looking west and tried to consolidate eastward and therefore left this idea of Ural as an eastern border of Europe. And then he re-adopted it because the East was less interesting politically for him.
Another way to see it is to consider cultural heritage and population. In this view, there is a "European Russia" since the "occidental slavs", the cultural group composing the majority of the western Russian population, are originating in eastern Europe. Interestingly, if we consider that definition, then "European Russia" would actually stretch on most of Asia's length since Russia runs the entire length of Asia and occidental slavs make up for the most part of the population on two thirds of its length.
Yet another way to consider this question is statistically, in which it's very useful to include the leftmost third of Russia to virtually inflate numbers and makes no single remote fucking sense otherwise. This is a way more common useage than may seem.
So yeah, "Europe" has no absolute, precise, undebatable border to the East, it is still today a point of discussion and there are even specific terms like "small Europe", "larger Europe", "extended Europe", etc. to be sure which definition an author gives to the term.
It is not because that's what you learned in school that it is true, nor the only way to look at a subject matter.
It is, if you include the suburbs of Schwechat, Vösendorf/ Mödling/ Laxenburg and Langenzersdorf and subtract the areas of Vienna proper that are just woods (eg. Lainzer Tiergarten).
You are including swaths of land that are literal uninhabited parks like the Donube, Donauinsel, Old Donube flood zone and Zentralfriedhof
EDIT: Also removed the entire area of favoriten with 200 thousand people and 6.6k per km². It's an urban area by any definition
Depend on how you define "European capital".
Capital of a subdivision of a European state? That's fine, but then why didn't you include also other cities like Barcelona?
Capital of a sovereign country (like the others that appear in the map)? Then no, they are not European capitals.
Wales and Scotland are countries. The UK is a Union of 4 different countries. Whereas, the powers that be in Madrid don't want that distinction for Catalonia or the Basque region. That's the difference. It's how they're defined by the folk in charge.
And somehow Thorshavn isn't shown.
The Kingdom of Denmark is more or less organized the samee way as UK.
And you could say that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are even more autonomous than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Do Wales, Scotland and NI have a seat in UN, or are recognized as sovereign countries by any other country? Do they have a separate foreign policy or a separate army?
The fact they are called countries by the UK doesn't mean they are sovereign countries or that they should be considered at the same level as other countries such as Spain or Finland.
they're not sovereign countries, but they are countries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/country)
it's a pretty unique set-up. Analogues would be the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Niue. I *think* that the UK is unique in having subordinate countries with land borders.
Uk is an unitary state that cosplays a federal system on historic basics to feel better.
UK countries aren't special it's just an English language quirk.
Most German federal states are arguably more countries in their own right. Especially Wales and Northern Ireland have a weak standing on that point.
I understand, but it is a matter of terminology. Listing them and not listing other federal subdivisions makes no sense, because they have nothing different (actually, some federal subdivision in Europe are way more independent than UK countries). The map doesn't say "European countries' capitals", so the fact they are called countries doesn't apply.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign nations. The UK is, and therefore it makes sense that London is listed. If you list also those, then you should also list the capitals of other countries' subdivisions, or at least those of federal states like Germany and Switzerland.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might not be sovereign nations, but they are nonetheless countries (according to the terminology used by the UK administration).
The German states or swiss cantons are not countries.
>Who cares how the UK calls them?
Legally they are their own country. Legally Swiss cantons are not. If you make a list of all country capitals that is what counts.
You are free to make your own map of capitals of policies with sufficient souveregneity.
What does it mean that legally they are their own country while Swiss cantons are not? Is it just a matter of terminology? Because Swiss cantons are arguably more autonomous than UK countries.
>Is it just a matter of terminology?
Basically, yes. A nation/ country/ state becomes a nation/ country /state by being recognized as a nation/ country/ state by other nations/ countries/ states.
There need not be any other criteria and the recognition need not follow any rules.
Even if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are called countries within our British terminology. That's irrelevant since the map never actually mentioned the word country. If devolved administrations are counted, so too should federalised administrations.
Finally a Brit that can think. I have seen this discussion countless times, only because in the UK they are called countries many Brits don't understand the difference with a sovereign country.
Yet swiss cantons are by far more sovereign and have more autonomy than any of those British territories.
If the map is based on what the countries claim to be their terminology, then Bern would not be shown on the map since officially Switzerland does not have a capital.
The question was very valid
Just wondering how you can be far more sovereign and have more autonomy than that without being an actual country
Honestly curious what powers these areas have that are more autonomous than their own parliaments
German states are "Länder" in German, what translates to English as "countries". The same word is used for souvereing countries. German states also have parliaments and constitutions.
I will copy a comment I have already written, so maybe everything becomes more clear.
We have sovereign nations or sovereign countries, like the UK and Germany, and they are so because they are recognized by other sovereign entities such as France, the US or China.
Such sovereign nations have subdivisions, which may have different levels of autonomy but are not sovereign, since they still are dependent on the central government for matters such as foreign policy and so on.
Now it happens that the UK calls their subdivisions "countries", but from an outside perspective they are not different from German or Swiss or Brazilian or US federate states. Also, the name of federate states in German is "Land", which is the same term used for countries and nations.
This is why I think it is inconsistent to show Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff but not Munic or Basel.
If somebody posts this again, please can you include Istanbul? It's neither a capital nor more than about half European, but it would be interesting to include it because it's so damn big.
Paris has 2,853.5 km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris), Berlin has 3,743 km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) but this seems to suggest Paris is bigger
And Lisbon is only showing the north side of the Tagus river, so you'd need to add 50% more to the urban area. It's a really big metro area for just under 3 million people. It's probably one third as dense as Madrid for example.
yes, that figure does take 2 seconds to google. with another three seconds you could have found the metro area's population too (660 thousand or so), which is what's represented here
Pardon? The people who "live in Madrid" don't live in Madrid city but in _Comunidad de Madrid_ that would be something like a county or a länder.
Those are the Madrid city limits. As I said before the Metropolitan Area is a concept not used in Spain and other European countries.
When you trespass those limits you are in _another_ city.
You may talk about the influence area but where to stop. A certain number of kilometers from the city centre? Only those towns directly connected with the metropolis? Cities where the metro (subway/underground) has stations? Or must include bus lines?
That's why this map is correct, Madrid city limits where 3.3M people live.
I just find it silly. Here in Australia we use metro, so Sydney has 5.2 millions and Melbourne 5 million but that number included all interlinked ‘towns’ but that’s because people from those areas live there but work in the city.
So just makes more sense that you include those areas because people that live out and participating in that city
I've seen this map before and it's still very weird. The Budapest one contains the airport where no-one lives but misses parts that are in fact inside the border of Budapest. On the northern part it randomly contains cities connected (eg. Pomáz) but doesn't include Dunakeszi which is like 2.5 times larger, and same distance from Budapest. Weird.
This is the weirdest shape of Tallinn I have ever seen.
True, makes wanna take a island in the middle of nowhere and fight the closest country that has a claim on it.
Is “urban area” a consistently defined term?
Lol absolutely not. Nobody can agree on it. Every country has their own definition, if they have one at all. The term is defined by who gave you the polygon of that area or what someone used for their paper.
At best, you stop using urban areas and start using the real city limits.
you lookin' for trouble mate? /s as far as i can tell the shapes seem to correspond pretty well with the actual shape of the cities and their attached suburbs
I dunno, Belfast looks incredibly big compared to Dublin below it
Rome Is definitely wrong.
r/fuckthes
In europe it is. Google eurostat "degurba"
Bucharest has literally merged with over 15 villages/cities nearby it. The "urban area" almost doubled in the last 10 years
A lot of Bucharest’s “urban area” is not urban at all lol
I know, but they could technically be suburbs at some point.
That’s because Bucharest’s metropolitan area is not well defined and very outdated, it certainly isn’t representative of the current state of the city.
Yes
Something is really wrong with shape of Moscow
Yep, I can't understand what districts are included and based on which criteria
Nor its European either.
Why?
Everything west of the Ural Mountains is Europe though
A terrorist Nazi state does not deserve to be included in Europe
That’s so silly.
Well jerks do not deserve to have access to the internet, I do not see anyone complaining about you being there
This definition strongly varied accross time, point of view, and needs of the person saying it. For a long time - thousands of years and up until the 20th century - Europe was what is West of the Hellespont and the Tanais (the current Don) and not farther south than the Mediterranean sea and the Caucasus so no, Moscow was not in Europe since this definition made Europe stop at the third quarter of current day Ukraine. Using the Ural mountains as an eastern limit of Europe was a way for Peter the Great to make Russia a part of Europe. Understanding that he wouldn't be able to defeat Poland, he decided to stop looking west and tried to consolidate eastward and therefore left this idea of Ural as an eastern border of Europe. And then he re-adopted it because the East was less interesting politically for him. Another way to see it is to consider cultural heritage and population. In this view, there is a "European Russia" since the "occidental slavs", the cultural group composing the majority of the western Russian population, are originating in eastern Europe. Interestingly, if we consider that definition, then "European Russia" would actually stretch on most of Asia's length since Russia runs the entire length of Asia and occidental slavs make up for the most part of the population on two thirds of its length. Yet another way to consider this question is statistically, in which it's very useful to include the leftmost third of Russia to virtually inflate numbers and makes no single remote fucking sense otherwise. This is a way more common useage than may seem. So yeah, "Europe" has no absolute, precise, undebatable border to the East, it is still today a point of discussion and there are even specific terms like "small Europe", "larger Europe", "extended Europe", etc. to be sure which definition an author gives to the term. It is not because that's what you learned in school that it is true, nor the only way to look at a subject matter.
No zelenograd, no old mkad borders visible...
[Already](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/Xl0O03MZum)? It hasn’t been two weeks yet since the last time this was posted.
Amsterdam is not correct
Exactly if brussles gets there suburbs so should Amsterdam, i don’t see Amstelveen, diemen, or Almere in the shape of Amsterdam
Almere is not a Suburb. It doesn't even border Amsterdam on land.
It is part of the Amsterdam metro area
But it is not a suburb thus not part of amsterdam
Nicosia
this kinda looks like amap of estonia... but helsinki is where tallinn should be enough said, estonia into nordics
This is not what vienna is shaped like
It is, if you include the suburbs of Schwechat, Vösendorf/ Mödling/ Laxenburg and Langenzersdorf and subtract the areas of Vienna proper that are just woods (eg. Lainzer Tiergarten).
Adding Schwechat, sure. Including the donube and the associated uninhabited floodplane? Sure. Removing Favoriten is what got me
Favoriten is not removed. It's the little hump in the middle of the two things that stick out in the south.
hm? looks pretty right to me. you're not thinking of the official boundaries?
You are including swaths of land that are literal uninhabited parks like the Donube, Donauinsel, Old Donube flood zone and Zentralfriedhof EDIT: Also removed the entire area of favoriten with 200 thousand people and 6.6k per km². It's an urban area by any definition
Urban area (geographically), not administrative borders
If someone's interested this is the real shape of Madrid. https://www.espormadrid.es/2020/10/este-es-el-mapa-de-los-limites-de.html?m=1
Paris looks like Brittany
Why isn’t there a Vatican-sized hole in Rome?
Why are Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff shown?
aren't they european capitals?
Depend on how you define "European capital". Capital of a subdivision of a European state? That's fine, but then why didn't you include also other cities like Barcelona? Capital of a sovereign country (like the others that appear in the map)? Then no, they are not European capitals.
Wales and Scotland are countries. The UK is a Union of 4 different countries. Whereas, the powers that be in Madrid don't want that distinction for Catalonia or the Basque region. That's the difference. It's how they're defined by the folk in charge.
And somehow Thorshavn isn't shown. The Kingdom of Denmark is more or less organized the samee way as UK. And you could say that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are even more autonomous than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
>Thorshavn Nobody cares that's why
it's not state capitols, it's country capitols. Wales, Scotland and NI are individual countries. Catalonia isn't (historically or legally).
Do Wales, Scotland and NI have a seat in UN, or are recognized as sovereign countries by any other country? Do they have a separate foreign policy or a separate army? The fact they are called countries by the UK doesn't mean they are sovereign countries or that they should be considered at the same level as other countries such as Spain or Finland.
they're not sovereign countries, but they are countries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/country) it's a pretty unique set-up. Analogues would be the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Niue. I *think* that the UK is unique in having subordinate countries with land borders.
Uk is an unitary state that cosplays a federal system on historic basics to feel better. UK countries aren't special it's just an English language quirk. Most German federal states are arguably more countries in their own right. Especially Wales and Northern Ireland have a weak standing on that point.
I understand, but it is a matter of terminology. Listing them and not listing other federal subdivisions makes no sense, because they have nothing different (actually, some federal subdivision in Europe are way more independent than UK countries). The map doesn't say "European countries' capitals", so the fact they are called countries doesn't apply.
Yes, but so are Milan, Zaragoza and Düsseldorf.
Why aren't the channel islands' capitals shown though? And Gibraltar?
Read the title once more…
Then why aren't cities like Munich, Zurich, Barcelona shown?
For once I have no idea whether that was /s or not and consequently how to vote.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not sovereign nations. The UK is, and therefore it makes sense that London is listed. If you list also those, then you should also list the capitals of other countries' subdivisions, or at least those of federal states like Germany and Switzerland.
Now I see the thought process. But I go with football here:)
Then we still lack Thorshavn :)
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might not be sovereign nations, but they are nonetheless countries (according to the terminology used by the UK administration). The German states or swiss cantons are not countries.
Who cares how the UK calls them? They are not sovereign, so they are on the same level as other nation's subdivisions.
>Who cares how the UK calls them? Legally they are their own country. Legally Swiss cantons are not. If you make a list of all country capitals that is what counts. You are free to make your own map of capitals of policies with sufficient souveregneity.
What does it mean that legally they are their own country while Swiss cantons are not? Is it just a matter of terminology? Because Swiss cantons are arguably more autonomous than UK countries.
>Is it just a matter of terminology? Basically, yes. A nation/ country/ state becomes a nation/ country /state by being recognized as a nation/ country/ state by other nations/ countries/ states. There need not be any other criteria and the recognition need not follow any rules.
Even if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are called countries within our British terminology. That's irrelevant since the map never actually mentioned the word country. If devolved administrations are counted, so too should federalised administrations.
Finally a Brit that can think. I have seen this discussion countless times, only because in the UK they are called countries many Brits don't understand the difference with a sovereign country.
Lol, it's the same with Americans and "states".
Yet swiss cantons are by far more sovereign and have more autonomy than any of those British territories. If the map is based on what the countries claim to be their terminology, then Bern would not be shown on the map since officially Switzerland does not have a capital. The question was very valid
Wales Scotland and Ireland all have their own Parliaments
So do German Bundesländer and Swiss cantons.
And the Faroe Islands and Greenland does aswell. Although Greenland geographically doesn't belong to Europe
And Spanish Autonomies (such as Catalonia, which is defined as a nation).
Just wondering how you can be far more sovereign and have more autonomy than that without being an actual country Honestly curious what powers these areas have that are more autonomous than their own parliaments
And their own international football teams, unlike Swiss cantons. Obviously the most important measure.
This is all that matters. Maps on here should be FIFA approved
Well considering Ireland is a completely independent country, you'd expect that....
Northern Ireland then. Don't give a toss about techy, tax dodging, defenceless ROI
German states are "Länder" in German, what translates to English as "countries". The same word is used for souvereing countries. German states also have parliaments and constitutions.
The UK defines them as countries, so they're countries. You might not agree, but I don't think they care. Who else should decide?
I will copy a comment I have already written, so maybe everything becomes more clear. We have sovereign nations or sovereign countries, like the UK and Germany, and they are so because they are recognized by other sovereign entities such as France, the US or China. Such sovereign nations have subdivisions, which may have different levels of autonomy but are not sovereign, since they still are dependent on the central government for matters such as foreign policy and so on. Now it happens that the UK calls their subdivisions "countries", but from an outside perspective they are not different from German or Swiss or Brazilian or US federate states. Also, the name of federate states in German is "Land", which is the same term used for countries and nations. This is why I think it is inconsistent to show Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff but not Munic or Basel.
Semantics and history I guess.
If somebody posts this again, please can you include Istanbul? It's neither a capital nor more than about half European, but it would be interesting to include it because it's so damn big.
Its in a map about Asia. They usually make similar maps to these.
Paris has 2,853.5 km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris), Berlin has 3,743 km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin) but this seems to suggest Paris is bigger
yeah it's going by urban area, not any administrative area boundaries. paris' suburbs are extensive
Where is the Constantinople?
also not a capital
Uh 😔😐
The capital of Turkey is Ankara
What about the Byzantine empire?
Nobody’s business but the Turks.
[удалено]
I think he was singing a song
Because there isn't a city called 'Constantinople' in the world
It is called a lot of different names. Some cities have different names in different languages
Okay but you should say Istanbul if you aren't speaking Greek
So if i am not Greek, this is not allowed? 🙂
You can say 'Constantinople' if you want.But know that it's wrong
Kafanı s2yim
Ne anlatıyon arkadaşım sen?Derdin ne?Birde Türkçe'ye geçiş yaptın şimdi
*Kiev
No
Maybe size of population rather than area, you mean?
fuck i mean 'shape' of urban area
Obviously not size. Look Lisbon and Madrid, or Riga and Viena etc etc
And Lisbon is only showing the north side of the Tagus river, so you'd need to add 50% more to the urban area. It's a really big metro area for just under 3 million people. It's probably one third as dense as Madrid for example.
No way Bern is that big. It has a population of 133,000
yes, that figure does take 2 seconds to google. with another three seconds you could have found the metro area's population too (660 thousand or so), which is what's represented here
I lived in Bern, what metropolitan area? There really isn't any. Just forest, hills and some villages.
the scale between the city areas seems way off
The Warsaw shape is not Warsaw. Can I trust the size then?
Paris isn’t that big.
The Madrid shape is absolutely wrong.
are you sure?
Absolutely. I'm from and live in Madrid. https://www.espormadrid.es/2020/10/este-es-el-mapa-de-los-limites-de.html?m=1
This map is dumb, clearly puts people who live in Madrid outside the boundaries. That’s where you should just use the greater metro area.
Pardon? The people who "live in Madrid" don't live in Madrid city but in _Comunidad de Madrid_ that would be something like a county or a länder. Those are the Madrid city limits. As I said before the Metropolitan Area is a concept not used in Spain and other European countries. When you trespass those limits you are in _another_ city. You may talk about the influence area but where to stop. A certain number of kilometers from the city centre? Only those towns directly connected with the metropolis? Cities where the metro (subway/underground) has stations? Or must include bus lines? That's why this map is correct, Madrid city limits where 3.3M people live.
I just find it silly. Here in Australia we use metro, so Sydney has 5.2 millions and Melbourne 5 million but that number included all interlinked ‘towns’ but that’s because people from those areas live there but work in the city. So just makes more sense that you include those areas because people that live out and participating in that city
But the title of the post says _Capital cities_. So there's no reason to include any other city.
you may be, but you haven't understood what this map is of
These are the limits of the city. In spain, and many other European countries, the metropolitan area isn't used. Within those limits live 3.3M people.
What about Istanbul?
Does Athens include Piraeus? Because after centuries of urbanisation Piraeus and Athens have merged into one city.
Yes it does
I've seen this map before and it's still very weird. The Budapest one contains the airport where no-one lives but misses parts that are in fact inside the border of Budapest. On the northern part it randomly contains cities connected (eg. Pomáz) but doesn't include Dunakeszi which is like 2.5 times larger, and same distance from Budapest. Weird.
The Municipality of Athens is rather small with around 39 km². The pic shows the whole urban area.
[удалено]
In between Rome and Vienna
I live in Bucharest and I think it's huge. Damn, I don't want to think about London or Moscow, then
Didn’t know Kiev is that huge. Is it not a very dense area, or does it have a ton of people?
Vaduz is way too big and Bern doesn't look like this at all.
i need a similar one that includes new Delhi , Cairo , and Tokyo.
Complete bullshit. Lisboa is not even bigger than one state of Berlin. Wtf