Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this essay I will discuss the structural and aesthetical differences between
Greek and Roman architecture. I will discuss how the architecture of both is a complete
reflection of the two civilisation’s ideals, a comparison between the two, and the reasons
why this relationship exists. I will concentrate on Greek and Roman temples, with
In ancient Greece, universal order is the ideal. The order of nature, the order of
man, everything must submit to order. If it is not order it is chaos and this is very
that the idealism of forms and the presence and importance of nature of this civilisation is
expressed in the ruins we see of this culture. Temples are the best example of this. The
location of a temple itself was extremely vital. Temples were often placed upon hill
locations. A temple did not make a sanctuary, a temple was placed upon a place which
was already sacred. It was often the centre of the town, or else the town developed around
it, basically1. The temple was within the “area” of a sanctuary. The god’s presence was
most sacred, and was not simply housed within the structure as if to trap the holiness
inside. A common feature of Greek temples is that they are open-air, rows of column
simply a second border of columns was flanked around the first. Nothing was encased or
enclosed. This reflects the religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks. Their religion and the
stories which accompany it which we call myths all explain nature. The order of the
universe and nature are so important to the ancient Greek religion that you cannot
separate the Greek definition of a god without mentioning nature, whether it is a part of
1
Lawrence, AW. Greek Architecture, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969. p. 83.
2
nature a god has control over, a story in which nature plays a part, or an amplified trait of
human nature/character which breaths life into a god’s realness to the Greeks. Nature and
religion are so deeply woven in each other in Greek ideals that it is impossible to mention
one without giving credit to the other. The open-air feature of Greek temple is therefore
In universal order, forms must be perfect, and they must be pleasing to the eye. In
his book Lawrence states that ‘their aim was always to perfect a type of building’2.
Pediments, columns, squares, and other shapes employed in Greek architecture employed
to illustrate perfection all reflect this ideal, which is a facet of their religious belief. An
example of this is the Parthenon, which is often noted as being ‘as near perfection as is
humanly possible’3 In Greek art, observers notice the perfect shapes and forms of the
bodies of statues and relief. The Greeks are famous for their worship of the human body,
culminated in one of their famous traditions we adopt today: the Olympic Games. The
simplicity of Greek temples compared to the ornate features of other religious and later
perfection and in perfection ‘less is more’ as the saying goes. Greek temples were not
lavished upon with egotistic creations and decorations by man. The focus was on the
godliness of the temple in its design. The temple existed to reflect an absence of ego,
By stark contrast, the tradition of the Roman temple is to glorify the ego, often the
ego of one man: the emperor. A grander temple means a grander person who
commissioned its building. Decorations pay tribute to past emperors, serving to glorify
2
Lawrence, AW. Greek Architecture, 2nd edition. p. 83.
3
Lawrence, AW. Greek Architecture, 2nd edition. p. 83.
3
and extend the character of oneself upon stone. The Greek ideal and absence of ego is
completely lost to Roman vanity and pride. The focus of temples is therefore placed upon
their appearance. One feature of Roman temples is that the columns were not all around
replacing walls, but rather only the front had free-standing columns4. The location of
Roman temples was not a religious choice like with the Greeks. It did not matter where
they placed a temple as long as there was sufficient room for it, and enough space to
show it off. Roman temples stood out not for their idealistic perfection and ‘set-apart’
nature as in Greek location and aesthetics of temples, but instead because of their
grandeur, which was both simultaneously structural as well as aesthetic. Temples were
‘rectangular in plan, raised on a podium, and with a wider spreading roof partly supported
by other columns’5. Temples were raised to show them off, to express their grandeur. The
structural form of the podium, which was enormously taller than the basic podium used
in Greek architecture, served to make the temple look more impressive, that you had to
walk up steps to it. It was meant to be imposing and proud. As compared with Greek
ideals of form and order, the Roman ideal it can be said is simply grandeur. We see by
Roman ruins left today which are icons to modern civilisation how simply enormous their
public structures were in general. The Coliseum is a colossal structure! So is the Basilica.
The examples of Roman ruins which were enormous in size and lavish in design is
unending. Large forums in Rome were squeezed to simply celebrate emperors, for
example the Forum of Trajan, with a ‘grandoise entrance [leading] into a large open
square flanked by porticoes, the central feature of which was a gilded bronze equestrian
4
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture, 19th edition. London:
Butterworths, 1987. p. 210.
5
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture. p. 210.
4
state of Trajan’6. Ward-Perkins goes on to note that ‘the whole complex was lavishly
adorned with polychrome statuary symbolic of the emperor’s triumphs’7. Again and again
which remain today still to impress everyone who sees them. ‘The Glory that was Rome’
exists today symbolised by their architecture which so heavily expressed the wealth,
The focus of Greek temples was to house the sacredness of the gods, for the
Roman their temples were to house themselves and accordingly their decorations reflect
this. The centre of Roman cities was the forum, a public domain, a place where as
mentioned in the example of the Forum of Trajan, decoration was employed without
much inhibition to glorify the builder, usually the emperor or in other towns the city
leader. The Romans probably derived the tradition of a public space from the Greek
gathering place, the ‘agora’8. The planning of early Greek cities was not necessarily
symmetrical. Towns simply developed, usually around the focal point of the temple.
However in later Hellenistic times, the plans of cities was ‘dominated by grid-plan cities
created for Alexander and his successors’9. Roman cities are noted for their square block
posts remain even unto today. In a way the shape of these fortresses reflects a feature of
Roman military power: it is rigid, disciplined, at its peak it was the most powerful
military power in the world. This is again a glorification of self: the Roman never cease
6
Ward-Perkins, John Bryan. Roman Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
Publishers, 1977. p. 110.
7
Ward-Perkins, John Bryan. Roman Architecture. p. 110.
8
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture, 19th edition. p.134.
9
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture, 19th edition. p.134.
5
to show their power by their designs, in this case the rigid stark square shape of a Roman
outpost signifying how well-trained and disciplined the Roman soldiers are, as the
The employment of certain Greek innovations later used and extended by the
Romans is seen in arches. With the Roman invention of concrete, Rome was enabled to
create its massive structures, and especially arches in the interior of buildings. Greeks
used arches but mainly as exterior decorations. It was the Romans who employed this
architectural structure to its full potential to create structures like the Pantheon.
Aesthetically, the Roman use of again Greek-derived architecture in the form of columns
varies once more. Columns were used as a hierarchical expression. The grandeur of the
owner of a building was shown by the impressiveness of the building’s columns. This
again is a communication of ego. The first uses of Greek columns, ‘the principal orders
of Classical Greek architecture; the Doric and Ionic, were first used for the temples’10.
The column in Roman architecture is used in almost every type of architecture possible
In concluding this, I state that there is a stark contrast between the communication
of architecture expressed in ancient Greek and Roman architecture. While Rome derives
much of its architectural structures from Greek invention, Roman innovation and Roman
ideals alter the way the structures are expressed aesthetically, turning what is worshipped
by the Greek as perfection and the idealism of nature into glorification of wealth,
strength, and military power. Architecture derived from the Greek is constantly used by
the Romans on much grander scales thanks to concrete in order to impress and intimidate.
The Greek’s architecture remains by comparison lowly and simple, aesthetics differ in
10
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture, 19th edition. p.101.
6
that the goal is to communicate universal order, which is culminated in the expression of
the geometrically perfect and simple. The lavishness and grandness of Roman buildings
is the polar opposite of this. The relationship between the two civilisations is apparent in
the derivation of structures such as the arch, column, and pediment, but this is as far
directions. The Greek focus is upon perfect, upon the absence of ego in order to better
imitate the natural order of the universe, whereas the Roman focus in its architectural
expression is constantly a means of glorifying the ego and impressing the viewer.
7
Bibliography
Fletcher, Sir Banister. Sir Banister’s A History of Architecture, 19th edition. London:
Butterworths, 1987.
Ward-Perkins, John Bryan. Roman Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
Publishers, 1977.