Not really, but it kind of will always look like it might.
Cities are basically centers of logistics, in the broad sense that includes the dissemination and distribution of information and control as well as simply goods. As such they will invariably grow in places where logistics is practical and cities where the logistics is bad tend to not grow very large.
Historically efficient logistics has meant water transport and cities have grown along coasts at places with natural harbours and along navigable rivers. Places where the two meet and transshipment from ships to barges happens have been prime locations for large cities. So places where you find large cities are fairly predictable.
But if you step up from good location for cities and which cities have chances to grow "major" you'll find lots of variables.
The obvious one is that trade routes are connections between supply and demand connected with the technology available within the political limitations of the time.
Supply depends on natural resources and their development. It depends on locations of large centres of manufacture. What is manufactured and how and how well it can be transported depends on technologies available.
Your city may have resources suitable for making excellent glass, but if the techniques required are unknown or nobody has figured the weird sand is valuable or somebody else already has the market, the growth potential will remain limited.
Similarly unless there is population or industry that needs a resource being well positioned to supply it is not very useful. So the population and infrastructure at nearby areas is vital. This is really a major issue since population and infrastructure concentrate around cities, so interactions between cities are very important in which will grow really major. If a city nearby is already much large it will take unusual events to displace it as the major city of the area even if your location is now otherwise better. Similarly if there are no other large cities nearby, having good logistics is not that useful. Trade and industry will go to cities with larger markets.
And the "nearby" is dependent on technology and politics. A person building a factory in South Korea because just to the North on the other side of the border there is population that has need for the product will probably be denied funding. Being on the Atlantic or Pacific was much less valuable before crossing oceans became reasonably safe and economically viable.
It also naturally varies over time. When Rome was able to supply itself with food produced nearby building it away from the sea made sense. When it later grew large enough to require importation of food by ship, the city was not moved to the coast, nor did trade and population move to Ostia.
And then there is the inconvenient fact that humans change geography to allow easier logistics. They make rivers more navigable and dig canals where no connection existed. They make artificial harbours of concrete where no natural harbour existed. They build roads and railroads to supply effective logistics where nothing natural existed. Many river valleys were converted from marshes or jungles to rich agricultural land supporting large populations along the rivers. Large water projects can turn deserts into something capable of supporting cities.
So while you can say that major cities be themselves are "deterministic" the geography of transport routes, population, resources, and industry that determines which cities grow and which do not is dynamic, complex, and variable product of the past history and technological progress.
This turned out to be fairly incoherent and rambling even by my standards. Hope it is still possible to determine what I was trying to say. Suggestions on fixes welcome.