A Comparison of Ancient Greece and Rome

Hello, my name is Ben Cordero and for my English 1B project today, I'm going to be talking about the many differences and similarities in culture, military, architecture, government, and other things between Greek and Rome in the ancient Mediterranean. And to start this video, I think one of the first things we need to mention is that these two different cultures and societies didn't exactly exist at the same time. The Greeks that I'm going to be talking about in today's video are the Greeks of the archaic and classical period, specifically from around 500 BC until the rise of Alexander in around 320 BC. And the Romans that I'm going to be talking about existed just a bit later after the Punic Wars all the way until around 500 AD. So a bit of a difference. First things we need to discuss and one of the largest differences between these two different societies was the actual organization of the different Greek and Roman states. One thing that I think many people don't really understand is that Greece was not a single state. It was, in fact, a huge number of what were known as polis, which are basically city-states. They came together to form the many different city-states of Greece, but there was no unified Greek state, at least until the rule of Alexander, which came much later. The people of these lands were completely separated into different cities and states, and they were not even necessarily even located within modern day Greece, which is more of a modern concept. They were located all throughout the Mediterranean, with some of the largest Greek city-states being located in, for example, Italy, like Syracuse, which is located in modern-day Sicily. These many Greek city-states had entirely different cultures, governmental forms, such as the different governments between Athens and Sparta, which were complete opposites of each other. One being more of a monarchy and dictatorship, and another a semi-form of early democracy, with these different city-states being at war with each other for a large period of their history. But while there was many differences, these different city-states had quite a number of similarities, including a similar language, which might have been separated into different dialects and accents, and of course the Greek religion. In contrast to this, we have the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and even before that the for most of its history was one single state. There was different provinces within the Roman Empire and Republic, but this was more similar to what we see today in the United States, and even back in the old Achaemenid Persian Empire, wherein the empire was subdivided into different states that all fell under the central role of, in this case, Rome. So while this is a huge difference between these two different societies, it's obvious that the Romans were heavily inspired by the Greeks, and this is no more evident than in architecture. Many people would probably have a hard time differentiating between Roman and earlier Greek architecture if they didn't know the difference, and this is because the Romans, they borrowed a lot. So what are the main similarities we can see between Greek and Roman architecture? Well, one of the big differences is the use of similar columns. The Romans used a lot of the Greek column designs, for example, the Ionic, Doric, and Corinthian column designs, although they did use some of their own. And looking at many Greek temples, you might notice another similarity, and that is the use of a similar triangle-shaped pediment, which the Romans used and borrowed from the Greeks. It's not just coincidental that the Romans were building such similar temples and using all this similar architecture, because they were also worshipping similar and the same gods, for example, Jupiter versus Zeus, which is basically just the Roman name for Zeus. But there were also many differences between Greek and Roman architecture. Romans were not just inspired by the Greeks, but many different cultures, including the Etruscans, a civilization native to Italy before Roman times, meaning many of the Roman architectural styles originated in Italy itself. One difference, for example, with many temples is Romans had only one entrance into their temple, with a set of stairs usually located directly at the front. In contrast to this, the Greeks usually had stairs surrounding the entire temple so that you could enter from any side. Another difference that could be noticed is that in a lot of cases, the back of Roman temples were left completely barren or without any design at all. For example, the Pantheon in Rome is one of the most beautiful temples, one of the most beautiful buildings anywhere. It has large columns, a grand entrance, but if you look at the Pantheon from behind, something you'll notice is that it's quite unimpressive. And this is because Roman temples like the Pantheon were not supposed to be viewed from behind. They were oftentimes against walls and other buildings, thus left bland. In contrast to this, we have Greek temples, which were meant to be beautiful from all different angles because they were often located on top of a hill or a high point, for example, in the center of a city. We have one of the best examples, which is the Greek Acropolis of Athens, which is situated at a high point in the center of the city and can be viewed from all different angles in the city of Athens. But beyond this, the Romans were, of course, quite a bit more advanced than the Greeks. It did come a couple hundred years later, so this makes sense. So beyond simple architectural differences that we see, we also see a lot of differences in constructions. The Greeks were already quite advanced, but the Romans would take construction to another level with Romans methods of construction being more advanced than sometimes things that came a thousand years later. The Romans, for example, were the first people to understand the importance of the arch within construction and the load-bearing capacity that the arch had. And the Romans started using the arch everywhere. It can be seen on the facade of the Roman Colosseum with hundreds of different arches built all around the Colosseum. Of course, Romans would also use Roman concrete, which would be lost after the fall of the Roman Empire, but was extremely strong, even stronger in some cases than modern-day concrete. The Romans would use this concrete in the construction of bridges, temples, buildings, and everything. These different construction methods culminated in the Pantheon, its domed roof being built entirely out of concrete and would be the largest dome in the world for over a thousand years after. Still the largest unreinforced dome in the world, a testament to how unbelievably strong and advanced the Romans were when it came to construction. The Greeks, in contrast, did not know or did not have access to this technology at their time, so this is one of the many differences between the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans were, just in general, a bit more advanced, to say the least. The Romans would use their advancements in construction and their technology to build and create one of the most advanced and deadly war machines the world had ever seen. They built vast roads to move their military over the empire, they built bridges over enormous rivers that, after the fall of the Roman Empire, could not be built again until the industrial age. They could build forts extremely fast and thus were able to conquer an enormous empire. Speaking of, let's talk about the differences in the military structure of the Greeks and Romans. When talking about the military, it is clear that Rome was heavily inspired by the war stories of Greece. For example, Julius Caesar was and used Alexander the Great as an inspiration for how he would lead Rome's army and government. Caesar even started crying in front of a statue of Alexander the Great saying, I have not just cause to weep when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable. But in terms of tactics, the Roman military and the Greek militaries of old were widely different. The Romans used different weapons, military formations had different ranks, ways of battling, and would use all of these tactics to conquer Greece in the mid-150s BC. But this is not to say that the Greek military was ineffective. The Greeks made use of a military formation called phalanx. This military formation was used by many different Greek city-states and powers and was widely effective. The phalanx was a rectangular military formation that consisted of infantry usually armed with shields and long spears and the Greeks would use this formation to fight many different enemies including the Persians and would find success with the phalanx with its most famous showcase when Alexander the Great started conquering the entire known world. Of course, Alexander also used heavy cavalry and other military formations, but he was extremely successful using the phalanx and it was very important with his invasions. Now the Romans would make use of a similar formation to the phalanx for much of their history but found using the formation quite difficult against specific enemies. So the Romans made use of the Roman legion, which was quite different than the Greek phalanx. Roman legionaries would come equipped with a gladius, which was a small short sword that was used for stabbing instead of a long spear, a large shield, and tupila or javelins that were for throwing. These soldiers would be formed into large infantry groups and were heavily effective at destroying and even decimating the enemies. So which formation and which military in general was more effective? Well, this question was answered when the Romans invaded Greece and while the Romans would lose several battles, overall they were much more heavily equipped, had better access to fresh troops, made use of better tactics, and had better generals. This would lead to the battle of Corinth where the Romans won an overwhelming victory and after destroyed the entire city completely. This would mark the victory of the Romans and the subjugation of Greece into the Roman Empire and Republic for over 1500 years. With Greece even becoming the Roman Empire after the fall of the Roman Empire's western half in the late 400s AD, this remaining Roman Eastern Empire would be known later as the Byzantine Empire. And they would even drop the language of Latin and completely start speaking Greek. And this is a perfect example of how interconnected these two societies and cultures were. The Greeks and Romans at one point were a single entity. So considering how connected these two societies were, how similar and different were their cultures? What exactly did the Romans and Greeks have in common? One thing to notice about the different cultures of Greece and Rome is quite obvious, and that is language. One spoke Latin and the other spoke Greek. While both similar in the sense that they descended from the ancient Indo-European language, they were also extremely different. And this difference in language was also seen in the form of the text or scripts used by these different speakers. The Romans had a similar writing system inspired by the Greeks, but the Latin alphabet was a bit different. For example, it had different characters and symbols than the Greek alphabet. Well, what about art? Roman art was heavily inspired by Greeks in a similar way to architecture. Like with Greek and Roman architecture, there were many similarities, but the Romans changed and evolved Greek art. Both the Greek and Romans were fond of statues and murals, but one place where the Romans differed was in the realism of the portrayals of different people. The Greeks liked to idolize and idealize the gods or people that they were portraying on realistic levels of perfection in their portrayals, while in contrast, the Romans were not afraid to show their impurities and weaknesses with the portrayal of people, meaning their art was a bit more realistic than the Greeks, although still quite similar. Another difference in culture between the two societies is the importance of women in much of Greece. Women were not considered equals, and for example, in Athens, like many other Greek city-states, women were not even considered citizens. While women were definitely not equals in Rome either, they were at least given the right to citizenship within the Roman Empire and Republic. One Greek state that had many differences from other Greek states and shared some similarity to Rome when it came to women was surprisingly Sparta. Women in Sparta were seen as incredibly important as they were the bearer of children and future warriors. These women were allowed many different rights, for example, they were able to own property, whereas this was not allowed in Athens. But beyond the rights of women, both states and societies made use of an underclass of slaves. Rome's population was made up of millions of slaves throughout its empire that helped build, create roads, fight wars, do everything. But the overall population of slaves within Rome might not have been as high of a percent as it was in, for example, Sparta. Some historians estimate there might have been several times as many slaves as there was people and citizens within Sparta. Although to note, in both Greece and Rome, slavery was not based on race as it was, for example, in the United States. Many times the slaves were from conquered peoples from all over, including other city-states in Greece, meaning Greeks could have been slaves to other Greek states. And in the case of Rome, slaves came from all over the empire and beyond. The slaves in Rome would be used for many different things, but one thing they would be used for was for gladiatorial battles. These gladiators would fight other gladiators, they would fight animals, do challenges, and just about anything. The Romans built coliseums everywhere to showcase the most incredible battles for the citizens. This was in contrast to the Greeks who did not have gladiatorial battles in the same way that the Romans did. The Greeks saw these battles as barbaric. Greeks, on the other hand, had the Olympic Games, hosted every four years, with the violent parts of the games being simple fights between men that would not lead to death. These differences between the two societies further when it comes to the use of science and technology. The Greeks were extremely advanced when it came to math and, for example, philosophy, but had a less practical use of these words. The Romans might not have been as advanced when it came to math, but were much more practical. They used the science that they learned to build incredible structures to wage massive wars to build roads everywhere and dominate the world. Both Greece and Rome, while similar and in many ways different, were incredible in many ways. Greece and Rome would be the founding cultures of Western ideals, state structure, culture, and to this day, Greek and Roman architecture can be seen across the world, from the US Capitol building to the British Museum in London. Admiration for these two societies continues to this day. I mean, there's a reason the US uses the eagle just like the Romans did as a symbol of power. The Greek and Roman languages still flourish to this day, with much of English being a descendant and borrowing from these two different languages. It is clear that both Rome and Greece had an incredible impact not only on the Western world, but the world as a whole. And the fact that Greece and Rome are still looked back on today and admired after 2,000 years is simply incredible. So that's all I have for this video today and I want to thank you very much for watching. I understand this video is quite long, so hopefully you made it through the whole thing. Thank you very much again, I hope you enjoyed, and that's all.