1788–1791). In the first years of the autonomous Principality, the palatial
residence was in Kragujevac, and only with the removal of the Ottoman from
Belgrade in 1860 could that city become unchallenged as the capital of Serbia
(see the articles of Nikola Samardžić, Mirjana Roter Blagoječić). Bucharest
became the residence of the Wallachian prince until the 16th century; before
Cîmpulung, Curtea de Argeş and Tîrgovişte were in succession, the centres
of political life. Also, the Romanian “twin country” (Moldavia) between the
eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea did not always have its capital in Iaşi,
but first from the early 16th century; before the cities of Baia, Siret and Suceava
were the residences of the princes. The location of Bucharest compared to
the one of Iasi was from the geographical point of view more central (see the
articles of Monica Sebestyen, Maria Duda). The Bulgarian state of 1878 did
not initially have a definite idea of where the capital was to be located; after a
short transition period (1878/79), the decision was made in favour of Sofia, to
the disadvantage of Veliko Tărnovo, the medieval residence of the Bulgarian
emperors (see the articles of Hristo Ganchev, Grigor Doytchinov). Plovdiv,
which in 1879 had a larger population than Sofia was also suggested, however
was not favoured owing to its location (Eastern Rumelia) and strong Greek
heritage.
A third obstacle, which presented itself not only at the beginning of the
development of capital cities, was the strategic position of all three capitals:
all three are located near to their national borders, and are easy to reach and
occupy in the event of military conflict. Had security concerns been stressed,
the three capitals would have been established in remote, mountainous terrain,
of which all three nations possess a bounty of.
A fourth, but only temporarily problem was the character of the three cities at
the beginning of their functions as capitals. Bucharest, Sofia and Belgrade were
relatively small (population wise) and characterized by what would today be
termed as historic buildings. There was a chronic lack of modern city planning,
streets and (street)lighting, running water and sanitation in larger buildings,
transport connections to the outside world etc. The obstructive elements from
the past had therefore to be fixed first, to make room for modern necessities.
A central and long-standing obstacle in development in the case of Bucharest,
Sofia and Belgrade was the question of the what role these cities would have
for the national minorities in the countries they were capitals to and further
whether centralized organization should be implemented in these cities.^12
Until 1918, as Bucharest was only the centre of the so-called Old Kingdom this
question was of no consequence however from the 1920s, as a third of the
population of Romania was non-Romanian (Hungarians, Germans, Russians,
Ukrainians, etc.) this question became of critical importance. In the case of
Sofia, the problem was less stressed, since, in contrast to the Turkish-Greek
minority, the majority of non-Bulgarians in Bulgaria had migrated or been
assimilated. Belgrade was more similar to Bucharest following the various
Harald Heppner