This chapter explores how war reshapes metropolitan landscapes by examining the western and southeastern outskirts of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War. Rather than treating war solely as a historical episode, the author approaches it as a spatial process whose traces remain embedded in the territory. The study focuses on the relationship between historical battle maps and the present-day distribution of war remnants—such as bunkers, trenches, and fortified buildings—understood as elements of landscape heritage.

The research compares tactical maps produced by Republican General Vicente Rojo with contemporary density maps of Civil War remnants generated using GIS techniques. These density maps are based on an official regional heritage inventory and visualize where physical remains of the conflict are concentrated today. By overlaying both types of cartography, the chapter investigates whether the spatial distribution of surviving material evidence corresponds to the actual movements, advances, and defensive lines described in wartime maps.

The comparison reveals a strong correlation in non-urbanized areas. In landscapes such as the Casa de Campo or the countryside west of the Jarama River, high concentrations of remnants closely follow the arcs, fronts, and advances drawn in Rojo’s battle maps. In these contexts, density mapping does more than indicate where fighting occurred: it also reflects the intensity, direction, and temporal evolution of military operations, effectively reconstructing the spatial logic of the battles.

However, the method shows clear limitations in urbanized areas. Zones that were heavily fought over—such as the University City of Madrid—display few surviving remnants today, largely due to postwar reconstruction and urban expansion. As a result, density maps alone can give a misleading picture of the conflict in metropolitan environments, where destruction, rebuilding, and growth have erased much of the material evidence.

The chapter concludes that GIS-based density mapping is a powerful but partial tool for understanding war landscapes. Its greatest value emerges when it is combined with historical battle cartography, which provides narrative, strategic, and temporal depth. Together, these approaches allow for a more critical reading of metropolitan landscapes shaped by conflict, highlighting both the long-term spatial impact of war and the challenges of interpreting violent pasts in rapidly transformed urban regions.