History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedArchitecture Comparison - Greek vs Roman

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Lucky7MQ View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 17-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Lucky7MQ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Architecture Comparison - Greek vs Roman
    Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 11:04

I am writing a paper contrasting Greek architecture with Roman architecture.  I am supposed to choose a building or structure that existed in both cultures and compare and contrast specfic key works.  I chose to compare the temples of both cultures.  Specifically, the Parthenon versus the Temple of Portunus.  I have found a couple differences, but was wondering if anyone else out there could add anything.  I have listed what I have found so far.

The Temple of Portunus was raised on a high podium and could only be approached by steps across the front of the building in contrast to the Parthenon, whose steps run around all four sides.

The columned porch of the Temple of Portunus was deeper than the Parthenon and was only on the front of the building.

The cella on the Temple of Portunus has been expanded so that the remaining columns are half-buried in the cella walls, a form called pseudoperipteral.  The Parthenon is a peripteral temple and is entirely surrounded by free-standing columns.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  If you can think of better key works that I could do, I would appreciate those suggestions as well.  I started to compare the Greek theater to the Roman theaters, but could not find much information on them. 



Edited by Lucky7MQ
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 12:37
Well the basic difference is that the Temple of Portunus is of Ionic 'style' while the Parthenon is Doric.
Other differences:

*Parthenon was dedicated to a Goddess while the Temple of Portunus was dedicated to a God.
*Parthenon is built on top of the 'mount' called Akropolis while the Temple of Portunus is built near the river port..
* Parthenon built with pure white marble (Some argue that the interior was painted in bright blue and red colors) while the Temple of Portunus was built with tufa and travernite and covered in stucco (form of plastering).
*decorations on the Parthenon's Metope and frieze that are non-existant in the Temple of Portunus (some claim they disappeared during renaissance but there is no real proof they ever did exist).
*the columns of the Parthenon are 'free-standing' while those of the Temple of Portunus are buried in the cella walls (technique called pseudo-peripteral).
* the Temple of Portunus seems to have been built on top of an older temple, while the Parthenon seems to be the first and only constuction on the top of the Akropolis..
* only recently (after the discovery of the port) is the Temple of Portunus known under this name since it was previously known as the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, while the Parthenon was always known under the same name.


To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 14:06
Sorry i can't help you very much but...

The greek buildings are for the outers, good look is important
The roman buildings are for the insides, practical is important

The greek temples are usually rurals.
The roman temples are usually urbans

The greeks love, how to say this... air between colums
The romans need put stone between colums

any more sorry
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 604
Post Options Post Options   Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 23:55
One of the main differences visually(other than the ones given) is that the Greek style temples(Parthenon) is of a peripteros style, meaning -single rows of columns on all side- while the Romans in their engineering of Portunus had a row of columns where in which they placed concrete between the columns.
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: Philippines
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Post Options Post Options   Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Nov-2005 at 13:17

Roman architecture was initially based on Greek ideas, on which they compounded their own ideas. So essentially, they are in the same vein. However, due to the progression from Greek to Roman, as well as the Roman Empire's vastly superior wealth, most things Roman were larger and more elaborate.

The main difference that I recall from my reading is that the Greeks used columns for actual structural support, while the Romans had progressed enough to have the luxury of using columns for purely aesthetic purposes.

"It is easier to talk than to hold one's tongue."
Back to Top
Genghis Khan II View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
Post Options Post Options   Quote Genghis Khan II Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2005 at 17:00
Greeks had the best. There was barely any roman architecture. they borowed it all from the greeks.
Evolution is dead they just forgot to bury the body.

Logic is the best kind of evedence, science is only second best.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 604
Post Options Post Options   Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 01:52

In truth the romans did adopt greek architectural theories but in doing so they expanded engineering in general. The romans who are credited with the engineering of the arch, made this very significant impact on engineering becuase of the fact that with the arch, came much more size. structures could be made taller and all around larger.

Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: Philippines
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Post Options Post Options   Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2005 at 09:33
Actually, I believe it was the Babylonians who are credited with first developing the arch. The used it for support, due to its strength. The Romans, after learning of the arch from the Etruscans, were the first to use the arch above ground.

On a side note, the Romans also got their knowledge of the aqueduct from the Etruscans.
"It is easier to talk than to hold one's tongue."
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 604
Post Options Post Options   Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 17:01
Technically the Romans were the first to construct the first true "arch", arch meaning how we use it today. They were the first to construct a keystone at the apex of the arch which locks the other wedge shape blocks into a stable unit which then in turn transfers most of the weight to the decending pillars. But you would be right in the aspect that other cultures constructed a shape of an arch out of building materials before the Romans did, but thet did not engineer it with the complexity and strength of the Romans.
Back to Top
Jimius Maximus Hardcorii View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 29-Nov-2005
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jimius Maximus Hardcorii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 12:50
the parthenon is often cited as the pinnacle of greek architecture. maybe you should consider looking at Hadrian's pantheon in rome as a comparison- both were seen by rennaissance architects as influential and wonderous structures.
Genghis Khan II you are wrong! The Romans borrowed ideas from the Greeks but expanded on them in almost every conceivable way.
Emperor you say the Parthenon was first temple on Acropolis...in fact it was the last. Before the Persian destruction of 480 had been a temple to Athenia Polias ('of the city'). The Classical Parthenon would have functioned as a treasury for the Athenian state rather than a temple- no altar is associated with it.

Hope this helps!
Jim
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.