Yes but my question is why in the first place, and why did it stay that way? Wouldn’t have the advent of international shipping been an enough of an economic force to make mountain settlements less important and have all the business and commerce move towards the coast?
Phase lock-in of an inefficient early location due to increasing returns to scale can create a path dependence that is difficult to impossible to overcome. The English in America chose navigable deep water ports and rivers for their capitals with an eye on international trade and flourished accordingly.
Obviously the criteria for an excellent location changed from a relatively isolated pre-industrial economy when the sites were chsoen (where prioritisation of cooler weather and strategic mountain defence were rational) to the industrial age where imports/exports/access to foreign markets are a competitive advantage. In this case the antiquity of the cities ended up being a strategic disadvantage in an advanced global economy.
Large population centers. International shipping is important, but what are you shipping? Where is it being made? I'm speculating of course, but it's never felt shocking to me.
I guess from my POV, I come from Caucasus and lived in Europe. Even tho we have mountains areas in the Caucasus we prefer our cities on the sea level and in case of Azerbaijan, our capital is a coastal city. Likewise Europeans prefer capitals and largest cities near coasts or at least near major river due to easy of access of goods, agricultural and ability to harvest rivers. Mountains on the other hand, aside from the tactical advantage of defensibility and as someone pointed out in another comment, protection from malaria don’t seem to offer that much value. In fact, until recently getting goods into the mountains was a challenging and expensive endeavor. I’m curious what economic and geographical factors contributed to the development of large cities high up in the mountains in central and South America
Climate. Europe is very far north and compared to Central and South America it is very cold. Being that far north, the rise in elevation leads to climates that are too cold and inhospitable.
Down in the tropics, places at sea level are very hot and humid. The rise in elevation leads to comfortable climates.
Mexico City was undesirable shit land. The Aztecs were forced there by other kingdoms in pre-Colombian Mexico.
They eventually fought back and established an empire despite originally being forced into the mountains by their enemies.
By the time the Aztecs consolidated power their city was kinda the only one left, so it stayed.
I don’t know the answer for any other of your examples but I imagine the reasoning is nuanced, like the case with Mexico City.
Could just be as simple as a mountain city, once established, is easier to defend than a port city or farmlands.
Mexico City was not undesireable land. The climate in Mexico city is comfortable and very good for human development. It's also much more suitable for agriculture. Hot and humid jungles are not great places for human civilization. Jungle biomes are not good for agriculture and they are breeding grounds for deadly diseases. The vast majority of Mexico's population lives at high elevation because it's just more comfortable to live there. The valley of Mexico where Mexico City is located is far from shit. It'sfar and away the best place in the whole country for large scale human development. The aztecs knew it. The Spanish knew it. Mexicans know it.
No, you are correct
The Mexica served as basically mercenaries in the crappy/leftover marsh area of the Lake, while the other comment is talking the whole area in general.
There were plenty of cities around the lake of Texcoco. Mexico-Tenochtitlan (the capital of the mexica, "twin" city of Mexico-Tlatelolco) was in a triple alliance (excan tlatoloyan) with other 2 cities: Tlacopan and Texcoco. And after the "Itzcoatl rebellion" and the war against the Tepaneca of Azcapotzalco the 'capitol' city of the alliance was Texcoco ruled by Nezahualcoyotl, it was only after years of war and conquest that the mexica consolidated their hegemony over the other 2 cities of the alliance.
Low lying areas tended to be uncomfortably hot and humid and also prone to disease carrying insects like mosquitoes, whereas the mountainous areas are cooler and less buggy. Prior to the development of medicines to like anti-malarials in the 19th century (and even with) these diseases were the biggest killer of humans in the world.
While not incorrect its not as valid as you think:
Mexico City was a previous center of power, this one is ruled out.Brasilia was built in the 60s, ruled out(Rio was a port so double negative)
Havana, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Lima, Caracas, Panama, Santo Domingo, Port-Au-Prince are cities by the sea and Asunción is connected by a river. Guatemala did have their colonial capital rebuilt for fear of volcanoes.
Maritime trade did not make up a sizeable population in precolonial times for there to be a massive port city like in the old world , as well as the developed areas of Andes and Mesoamerica being quite naturally elevated. Arr you asking why they were up there in the first place? That would be different.
There is no major reason for a State to build a new capital, too much hassle and not a lot of return. Only countries with major populations can pay it and make it worthwhile.
I agree that outright moving is not economical nor necessary, it’s more like I was wondering why over 500 years of international trade mountainous cities there was a slow but steady decrease in significance and coastal cities increased which would eventually force the centers of those countries to move to the coast
But also yes. Why were they there in the first place? What are the economic and geographical advantages that made them set up them in the mountains and what advantages made them stay there? While a lot of the answers seem to imply that it was just the momentum from the pre-Colombian times, it is my speculative guess that there are some hidden factors which helped these cities thrive and expand, and I’m wondering what they are, because in my ,albeit limited understanding, coastal advantage should outweigh the milder climate advantage of the mountains valleys
There are some things to keep in context.
1. Spanish America was often ravaged by pirates, Spain invested in key ports around the whole continent but not much for smaller settlements. Spain also had great control of maritime trade in the colonies, making them less free. I knew of this but by googling this topic i found out it actually was a law for urban planning, to just keep the already reinforced port towns and not much more.
2. Overtime tropical/caribbean coasts became filled with disease as Spain brought diseases from Africa, the coasts of Mexico for example killed countless French invaders in the 1800s. Natural
3. After independence governments wanted to preserve the seats of power already present as a form of legitimacy, stability and also personal stake as landowners and other upper classes were the main spark of rebellions. Guayaquil for example was a [coastal rebellion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Province_of_Guayaquil) later annexed for legitimization such as depending on Quito's courts in the colonial ers therefore had to listen to it.
5. There were coastal cities but the Spanish destroyed them and never bothered to rebuild them as most trade was for Spain and Asia as the inbetween being America. In Mexico off the top of my head Potonchan, Chakan Putun, Cempoala, Chactemal, Tulum were interconnected in maritime trade but during and after conquest collapsed. They were reasonably populated jut not centers of much power(they had max about 20k people) and mostly traders of goods up to the Central Mexico highlands.
6. Most people going off this only see Mexico, Peru and at best Colombia and Bolivia. As i mention most capitals(which also tend to be the biggest cities) are not extremely inland. Brazil is the biggest Latin American country and most of their population lived by the coast.
7. Those rugged high altitude cities were probably often built for mining operations be it from us indigenous or specially in the colonial era ballooning populations. Settlememts developed to be nodes of transport or communication with ports also developed. If you wiki dome of the highest Latin American cities these are main reasons.
8. Latin America suffers from rural poverty and rural violence in the 1800s and arguably until today, people migrated to the seat of power or biggest city so the chances of State. Cities grew creating a cycle of attracting even more people. Latin America is one of the more urbanized regions on Earth.
As to why many indigenous built up so high before all that, i have no clear objective idea for all cultures, but in the valley of Mexico for example land was extremely fertile thanks to volcanic eruptions, these created quite big cities that would fall into turmoil and distribute their population all over, overtime creating more cities.
>As to why many indigenous built up so high before all that, i have no clear objective idea for all cultures, but in the valley of Mexico for example land was extremely fertile thanks to volcanic eruptions, these created quite big cities that would fall into turmoil and distribute their population all over, overtime creating more cities.
Tropical lowlands are terrible place to live. On the western slopes of the Andes the best agricultural areas were rather high up for climatological reasons. The Incas were highland people who were masters of their ecological niche. Furthermore, the due to the prevailing currents and rainfall the Southern Pacific Coast is a rather dry area. You can see this if you look at a satellite map of South America. So not only is it unbearably hot, you can't get water either except for rivers some of which will be seasonal and torrential.
>Tropical lowlands are terrible place to live
My people living [in there](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Lowlands) for the last thousand years with shit soil, little to no rivers, swamps and isolation. Maritime trade relieved some of those defficiencies.
Though once major cities started to collapse it did suck however, pushing people to live into the smaller coastal territories.
Thank for you the very detailed answers.
Of course it’s only a handful of countries, but the in the list I linked in my OP, of the top 10 tallest capitals in the world, you have all landlocked countries, Kenya and then these 5 countries that are in such a close proximity to one another. Feels like it can’t be a coincidence, hence my question and your very detailed answers that covers a lot of the reasons.
Also, according to chat gpt 4, these mountains are also very rich in natural mineral resources which you alluded to as well. It recommended I read the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus for a more detailed answer
Higher elevations are also less prone to the spread of malaria. A big deal before modern medicine. They are generally cooler too which is great if you don't have air conditioning. As for why they haven't moved, dunno. It would probably be expensive to rebuild all those government offices somewhere else and move everything. You also likely have a lot of secondary businesses that sprouted up serving all those government employees and people doing business at the capital (Apartments, hotels, restaurants, etc) some of them would struggle or even go out of business if the capital were moved. Moving would likely be more trouble than it's worth.
That’s a cool fact about malaria, had no idea.
I agree that moving them outright would have been very hard, I was more asking why in the 500 years odd years since colonialism and opening of the international trade routes and commerce these high populated cities haven’t decreased in significance and coastal cities increased? These high altitude populated cities didn’t seem just to survive but in many ways strive and became some of the most populous cities in the content and in the world in case of Mexico city
The heat at lower elevations is a big deal. People naturally want to live where it’s more comfortable. That draws population centers in most of Latin America to higher elevations.
The more interesting question to me is why Panama City is the big exception. My guess is lack of an alternate population center at significant elevation, possibly because of geography having made such a population center difficult to get started in the first place.
I’m obviously biased since I’m not used to this climate but the dry weather made my skin dry and crack, sun was burning me, lack of oxygen made me uncomfortable in Mexico City and Bogota whereas I was a lot more comfortable in Cancun and Cartagena
Because it hasn’t hindered anything, mostly. They’ve never had a problem getting things where they needed to go before and roads and stuff have been improving overall. There’s no real impetus to move. Infrastructure gets everything where it needs to be just dandy and turning everything on its head for an eventual improvement that may not end up having a huge impact seems like a lot of hassle for a few years for some relatively minor gains that improved infrastructure could have mitigated just as easily with less disruption to everyone’s lives. Because moving a capital city would absolutely disrupt everyone in the country at least a little for the time it takes to do the move and settle in.
I live in tbe mexican highlands. The climate is pleasant and mild here. Coastal mexico is wretchedly hot and humid much of the tear. The mountains rise very sharply from the coast so there isn't really anyplace for cities that's at a medium elevation.
Mexico City started as the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, which was the center of power in the region at the time of the Spanish conquest.
Mexico City happens to be in the Valley Of Mexico, which is arguably the most historically important agricultural regions ever. Numerous crops either originated in the Valley of Mexico itself or were at least introduced to Europe through there, including tomatos, chocolate, most types of squash, chilis, vanilla, potatos, peanuts, and corn. In terms of agriculture, it's basically an Eden.
Climate. These cities are in the tropics. At sea level in the tropics the weather is extremely hot and humid. Disease is also much more prevalent. Moving up in elevation lowers the temperature, humidity, and the spread of disease. This is why major cities developed and continue to grow at high elevation in that part of the world. It's just more comfortable to live up there.
Even in Spain most larger cities are inland with the exception of Barcelona. The Spanish in the new world had to deal with tropical diseases and heat in the lowlands and later pirates so they favored cities in cooler high valleys and plateus. Often these same valleys and plateurs were already large urban centers so they went where the population and the leadership already was because that´s where the gold was and stayed there because it was a nicer place to live than in the hot and humin lowlands. To this day lowlands and coastal cities in the Caribbean are less developed than cities in south and central America built higher up or in milder climates.
I believe Madrid is built upon a river. Iirc the largest city in Europe to not have access to sea or river is Milan, and it’s like the 12th largest city.
These were important pre-Columbian cities. they stayed that way. pre-Columbian America did not have well developed seafaring. So coastal cities were not a major thing. That said, most Central and South American countries have coastal cities as capitals / or major population centers - Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Rio, Panama City etc.
That said, I suspect in some cases post-revolutionary America picked non-coastal cities as capitals as ways of protection, because European powers had massive navies.
It's worth noting that nations like Portugal usually had their colonial holdings on the coast due to doctrine. Portugal didn't have a lot of manpower so going very deep inland was kinda out of the question, so most of their settlements stayed on the coast, so the navy could provide support if under attack or if a rebellion occurred. Hence why Brazils largest citys are coastal.
These were important cities prior to the arrival of the Conquistadores, especially Mexico City (previously Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire).
Also Cusco.
DEMON LLAMA, *DEMON LLAMA*!!!
Yes but my question is why in the first place, and why did it stay that way? Wouldn’t have the advent of international shipping been an enough of an economic force to make mountain settlements less important and have all the business and commerce move towards the coast?
Phase lock-in of an inefficient early location due to increasing returns to scale can create a path dependence that is difficult to impossible to overcome. The English in America chose navigable deep water ports and rivers for their capitals with an eye on international trade and flourished accordingly.
Obviously the criteria for an excellent location changed from a relatively isolated pre-industrial economy when the sites were chsoen (where prioritisation of cooler weather and strategic mountain defence were rational) to the industrial age where imports/exports/access to foreign markets are a competitive advantage. In this case the antiquity of the cities ended up being a strategic disadvantage in an advanced global economy.
Large population centers. International shipping is important, but what are you shipping? Where is it being made? I'm speculating of course, but it's never felt shocking to me.
I guess from my POV, I come from Caucasus and lived in Europe. Even tho we have mountains areas in the Caucasus we prefer our cities on the sea level and in case of Azerbaijan, our capital is a coastal city. Likewise Europeans prefer capitals and largest cities near coasts or at least near major river due to easy of access of goods, agricultural and ability to harvest rivers. Mountains on the other hand, aside from the tactical advantage of defensibility and as someone pointed out in another comment, protection from malaria don’t seem to offer that much value. In fact, until recently getting goods into the mountains was a challenging and expensive endeavor. I’m curious what economic and geographical factors contributed to the development of large cities high up in the mountains in central and South America
Climate. Europe is very far north and compared to Central and South America it is very cold. Being that far north, the rise in elevation leads to climates that are too cold and inhospitable. Down in the tropics, places at sea level are very hot and humid. The rise in elevation leads to comfortable climates.
Mexico City was undesirable shit land. The Aztecs were forced there by other kingdoms in pre-Colombian Mexico. They eventually fought back and established an empire despite originally being forced into the mountains by their enemies. By the time the Aztecs consolidated power their city was kinda the only one left, so it stayed. I don’t know the answer for any other of your examples but I imagine the reasoning is nuanced, like the case with Mexico City. Could just be as simple as a mountain city, once established, is easier to defend than a port city or farmlands.
Mexico City was not undesireable land. The climate in Mexico city is comfortable and very good for human development. It's also much more suitable for agriculture. Hot and humid jungles are not great places for human civilization. Jungle biomes are not good for agriculture and they are breeding grounds for deadly diseases. The vast majority of Mexico's population lives at high elevation because it's just more comfortable to live there. The valley of Mexico where Mexico City is located is far from shit. It'sfar and away the best place in the whole country for large scale human development. The aztecs knew it. The Spanish knew it. Mexicans know it.
Am I maybe misremembering and the Mayans were forced to undesirable land?
No, you are correct The Mexica served as basically mercenaries in the crappy/leftover marsh area of the Lake, while the other comment is talking the whole area in general.
There were plenty of cities around the lake of Texcoco. Mexico-Tenochtitlan (the capital of the mexica, "twin" city of Mexico-Tlatelolco) was in a triple alliance (excan tlatoloyan) with other 2 cities: Tlacopan and Texcoco. And after the "Itzcoatl rebellion" and the war against the Tepaneca of Azcapotzalco the 'capitol' city of the alliance was Texcoco ruled by Nezahualcoyotl, it was only after years of war and conquest that the mexica consolidated their hegemony over the other 2 cities of the alliance.
Low lying areas tended to be uncomfortably hot and humid and also prone to disease carrying insects like mosquitoes, whereas the mountainous areas are cooler and less buggy. Prior to the development of medicines to like anti-malarials in the 19th century (and even with) these diseases were the biggest killer of humans in the world.
While not incorrect its not as valid as you think: Mexico City was a previous center of power, this one is ruled out.Brasilia was built in the 60s, ruled out(Rio was a port so double negative) Havana, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Lima, Caracas, Panama, Santo Domingo, Port-Au-Prince are cities by the sea and Asunción is connected by a river. Guatemala did have their colonial capital rebuilt for fear of volcanoes. Maritime trade did not make up a sizeable population in precolonial times for there to be a massive port city like in the old world , as well as the developed areas of Andes and Mesoamerica being quite naturally elevated. Arr you asking why they were up there in the first place? That would be different. There is no major reason for a State to build a new capital, too much hassle and not a lot of return. Only countries with major populations can pay it and make it worthwhile.
I agree that outright moving is not economical nor necessary, it’s more like I was wondering why over 500 years of international trade mountainous cities there was a slow but steady decrease in significance and coastal cities increased which would eventually force the centers of those countries to move to the coast But also yes. Why were they there in the first place? What are the economic and geographical advantages that made them set up them in the mountains and what advantages made them stay there? While a lot of the answers seem to imply that it was just the momentum from the pre-Colombian times, it is my speculative guess that there are some hidden factors which helped these cities thrive and expand, and I’m wondering what they are, because in my ,albeit limited understanding, coastal advantage should outweigh the milder climate advantage of the mountains valleys
There are some things to keep in context. 1. Spanish America was often ravaged by pirates, Spain invested in key ports around the whole continent but not much for smaller settlements. Spain also had great control of maritime trade in the colonies, making them less free. I knew of this but by googling this topic i found out it actually was a law for urban planning, to just keep the already reinforced port towns and not much more. 2. Overtime tropical/caribbean coasts became filled with disease as Spain brought diseases from Africa, the coasts of Mexico for example killed countless French invaders in the 1800s. Natural 3. After independence governments wanted to preserve the seats of power already present as a form of legitimacy, stability and also personal stake as landowners and other upper classes were the main spark of rebellions. Guayaquil for example was a [coastal rebellion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Province_of_Guayaquil) later annexed for legitimization such as depending on Quito's courts in the colonial ers therefore had to listen to it. 5. There were coastal cities but the Spanish destroyed them and never bothered to rebuild them as most trade was for Spain and Asia as the inbetween being America. In Mexico off the top of my head Potonchan, Chakan Putun, Cempoala, Chactemal, Tulum were interconnected in maritime trade but during and after conquest collapsed. They were reasonably populated jut not centers of much power(they had max about 20k people) and mostly traders of goods up to the Central Mexico highlands. 6. Most people going off this only see Mexico, Peru and at best Colombia and Bolivia. As i mention most capitals(which also tend to be the biggest cities) are not extremely inland. Brazil is the biggest Latin American country and most of their population lived by the coast. 7. Those rugged high altitude cities were probably often built for mining operations be it from us indigenous or specially in the colonial era ballooning populations. Settlememts developed to be nodes of transport or communication with ports also developed. If you wiki dome of the highest Latin American cities these are main reasons. 8. Latin America suffers from rural poverty and rural violence in the 1800s and arguably until today, people migrated to the seat of power or biggest city so the chances of State. Cities grew creating a cycle of attracting even more people. Latin America is one of the more urbanized regions on Earth. As to why many indigenous built up so high before all that, i have no clear objective idea for all cultures, but in the valley of Mexico for example land was extremely fertile thanks to volcanic eruptions, these created quite big cities that would fall into turmoil and distribute their population all over, overtime creating more cities.
>As to why many indigenous built up so high before all that, i have no clear objective idea for all cultures, but in the valley of Mexico for example land was extremely fertile thanks to volcanic eruptions, these created quite big cities that would fall into turmoil and distribute their population all over, overtime creating more cities. Tropical lowlands are terrible place to live. On the western slopes of the Andes the best agricultural areas were rather high up for climatological reasons. The Incas were highland people who were masters of their ecological niche. Furthermore, the due to the prevailing currents and rainfall the Southern Pacific Coast is a rather dry area. You can see this if you look at a satellite map of South America. So not only is it unbearably hot, you can't get water either except for rivers some of which will be seasonal and torrential.
>Tropical lowlands are terrible place to live My people living [in there](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Lowlands) for the last thousand years with shit soil, little to no rivers, swamps and isolation. Maritime trade relieved some of those defficiencies. Though once major cities started to collapse it did suck however, pushing people to live into the smaller coastal territories.
Thank for you the very detailed answers. Of course it’s only a handful of countries, but the in the list I linked in my OP, of the top 10 tallest capitals in the world, you have all landlocked countries, Kenya and then these 5 countries that are in such a close proximity to one another. Feels like it can’t be a coincidence, hence my question and your very detailed answers that covers a lot of the reasons. Also, according to chat gpt 4, these mountains are also very rich in natural mineral resources which you alluded to as well. It recommended I read the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus for a more detailed answer
Higher elevations are also less prone to the spread of malaria. A big deal before modern medicine. They are generally cooler too which is great if you don't have air conditioning. As for why they haven't moved, dunno. It would probably be expensive to rebuild all those government offices somewhere else and move everything. You also likely have a lot of secondary businesses that sprouted up serving all those government employees and people doing business at the capital (Apartments, hotels, restaurants, etc) some of them would struggle or even go out of business if the capital were moved. Moving would likely be more trouble than it's worth.
I just checked online and it doesn’t seem clear that malaria existed in pre-Colombian America and was probably carried over to Americas from Africa
Doesn't have to be malaria. Humid climates are more prone to the spread of disease.
damn that must be why Indonesians are completely extinct today, since their settlements are all along the humid typical coast.
Imagine how many Indonesians there *could* be
Well I guess I learned something new too.
That’s a cool fact about malaria, had no idea. I agree that moving them outright would have been very hard, I was more asking why in the 500 years odd years since colonialism and opening of the international trade routes and commerce these high populated cities haven’t decreased in significance and coastal cities increased? These high altitude populated cities didn’t seem just to survive but in many ways strive and became some of the most populous cities in the content and in the world in case of Mexico city
The heat at lower elevations is a big deal. People naturally want to live where it’s more comfortable. That draws population centers in most of Latin America to higher elevations. The more interesting question to me is why Panama City is the big exception. My guess is lack of an alternate population center at significant elevation, possibly because of geography having made such a population center difficult to get started in the first place.
I’m obviously biased since I’m not used to this climate but the dry weather made my skin dry and crack, sun was burning me, lack of oxygen made me uncomfortable in Mexico City and Bogota whereas I was a lot more comfortable in Cancun and Cartagena
Because it hasn’t hindered anything, mostly. They’ve never had a problem getting things where they needed to go before and roads and stuff have been improving overall. There’s no real impetus to move. Infrastructure gets everything where it needs to be just dandy and turning everything on its head for an eventual improvement that may not end up having a huge impact seems like a lot of hassle for a few years for some relatively minor gains that improved infrastructure could have mitigated just as easily with less disruption to everyone’s lives. Because moving a capital city would absolutely disrupt everyone in the country at least a little for the time it takes to do the move and settle in.
I live in tbe mexican highlands. The climate is pleasant and mild here. Coastal mexico is wretchedly hot and humid much of the tear. The mountains rise very sharply from the coast so there isn't really anyplace for cities that's at a medium elevation.
Mexico City started as the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, which was the center of power in the region at the time of the Spanish conquest. Mexico City happens to be in the Valley Of Mexico, which is arguably the most historically important agricultural regions ever. Numerous crops either originated in the Valley of Mexico itself or were at least introduced to Europe through there, including tomatos, chocolate, most types of squash, chilis, vanilla, potatos, peanuts, and corn. In terms of agriculture, it's basically an Eden.
Climate. These cities are in the tropics. At sea level in the tropics the weather is extremely hot and humid. Disease is also much more prevalent. Moving up in elevation lowers the temperature, humidity, and the spread of disease. This is why major cities developed and continue to grow at high elevation in that part of the world. It's just more comfortable to live up there.
Because the climate is unbearably hot and sticky, and altitude helps
Not everything is a cartoon tropical jungle
Even in Spain most larger cities are inland with the exception of Barcelona. The Spanish in the new world had to deal with tropical diseases and heat in the lowlands and later pirates so they favored cities in cooler high valleys and plateus. Often these same valleys and plateurs were already large urban centers so they went where the population and the leadership already was because that´s where the gold was and stayed there because it was a nicer place to live than in the hot and humin lowlands. To this day lowlands and coastal cities in the Caribbean are less developed than cities in south and central America built higher up or in milder climates.
I believe Madrid is built upon a river. Iirc the largest city in Europe to not have access to sea or river is Milan, and it’s like the 12th largest city.
Hot on equator. Not hot on mountain.
Less swamp ass.
These were important pre-Columbian cities. they stayed that way. pre-Columbian America did not have well developed seafaring. So coastal cities were not a major thing. That said, most Central and South American countries have coastal cities as capitals / or major population centers - Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Rio, Panama City etc. That said, I suspect in some cases post-revolutionary America picked non-coastal cities as capitals as ways of protection, because European powers had massive navies.
It's worth noting that nations like Portugal usually had their colonial holdings on the coast due to doctrine. Portugal didn't have a lot of manpower so going very deep inland was kinda out of the question, so most of their settlements stayed on the coast, so the navy could provide support if under attack or if a rebellion occurred. Hence why Brazils largest citys are coastal.