[ANSWERED 2023] How did Greece influence the culture of Rome? What were the similarities and differences? Why did the Romans accept these ideas?

How did Greece influence the culture of Rome? What were the similarities and differences? Why did the Romans accept these ideas?

Expert Answer and Explanation

Rome was culturally influenced by their two great neighbors, Romans and Etruscans. Just like the Etruscans, Greeks had a significant influence on the Roman culture. The Greek influenced the Roman through various ways such as through Greek architectural designs, art, and mythology (Marconi, 2015).

One of the key similarities between the two cultures was the way they designed their buildings. Greek architecture was among the significant influence of Greek culture on the Romans. The Greek temples, home of their gods, were made using marbles. Temples such as the Parthenon was made up of columns which added to its beauty.

The Romans borrowed the Greek designs and started applying them in their public buildings. As time went by, they learnt how to use concrete to come up with larger structures such as the Circus Maximus, famous for horse racing, which could hold up to 200,0000 fans or more.

The other similarity which emerged between the two as a result of their interaction was the use of Greek art. By that time, Greek pottery was highly valued throughout Mediterranean world just because of its beauty and usefulness (Marconi, 2015). The Greek potters made large clay pots which were used to store wine, food and water. What amused many were the paintings made on the pots.

They depicted great leaders and warriors. The same modeling technique was later adopted by the Roman artists although they had their own designs. Other form of Greek art imitated by the Romans was painting.

The third similarity relates to mythology. The Greeks worshipped various gods and goddesses. These governed their daily life. They conducted rituals and sacrifices to acquire the favors from these gods for everything right from curing the sick to celebrating good harvest. The Romans had their gods too. However, the knowledge about the gods shifted the moment they started relating with the Greeks.

The gods from the Greek culture which portrayed almost similar features as theirs were automatically blended into their culture. They adopted various gods from the Greek and what they just simply did was changing the names. For instance, Zeus, the greatest Greek god was named as Jupiter. The Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite, was named as Venus.

Despite sharing a lot in common as far as the idea of culture is concerned, the two had some differences too. For instance, the Romans were efficient at practical applications whereas their counterparts were good at theoretical pursuits and abstractions.

The second difference related to the access of public places by women. Greek women were separated and could not go to public places. On the other hand, their counterparts had rights of movement, rights to own property or even divorce.

The reason as to why the Romans accepted these ideas was because their region was situated in the middle of various cities in the Greece (Marconi, 2015). These cities were separated by Peninsula. This increased the chances of contact between the Greeks and the Romans hence leading to significant influence.

Discuss the Roman division of social classes. How did Rome attempt to reconcile these differences in law and culture? What problems did these divisions cause? How could Rome have stopped these problems?

The ancient Rome was made up two social classes, upper and lower classes. The difference between the two was clear. The first class or division was known as the patricians. The patricians consisted of leading citizens, wealthy landowners, very successful businessmen, and government officials. Patricians occupied the upper class.

This group of individuals controlled both administrative and political power and enjoyed wealth (Alfoldy, 2014). They were well represented in Roman assemblies. They dominated for centuries because of their large number in the senate.

On the other hand, the Plebians were just ordinary residents, some small businessmen others very prosperous entrepreneurs. The Plebians occupied the lower class of the social structure. Unlike the Patricians, the Plebians did not have administrative or political power.

They were only supposed to engage in various activities but not politics (Alfoldy, 2014). Slaves in the ancient Roman social structure didn’t have any legal privileges. They completely depended on their masters.

Roman tried to reconcile the differences by dividing the residents into major divisions based on the quantity of property owned. Obviously, the wealthiest individuals (patricians) had bigger chucks of land, and as a result, they occupied the senate.

Separation of the people based on the amount of wealth brought a lot of confrontations among the Plebians, slaves, Lords, and Patricians. The groups openly opposed each other and sometimes the confrontations resulted to fights.

One of the ways Rome could solve these problems was by allowing senate be occupied by individuals based on their ability to lead and not by the amount of wealth they possess. This means that individuals could come from any social class. This could have helped to bring some sought of inclusivity in the government.

The other way could be through encouraging citizens to register. This could have helped to indentify the individuals together with their status. It could also present the simplest way to get public participation or consensus or opinion regarding a particular policy.

How did the Hellenists govern the lands that Alexander had conquered? What were the differences and similarities in how each area was governed? How did Hellenic regions cooperate with one another? What were the problems that these areas faced, and how could these problems have been overcome?

The reign of Hellenists started after the successful conquest by the Alexander the Great from Macedon to India. This success brought about tremendous changes especially in regard to the spread of the Greek culture in the conquered regions. During the reign of Alexander the Great, all the conquered regions maintained their initial system of governance (Alston, 2014). The only difference was that the regions were working and taking instructions from him. They paid taxes to him and provided him with soldiers for his military. The Greek culture became prominent.

Alexander had no successor or heir in line to take over from him. After his death, the empire was divided among his four commanders namely Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleucus. Cassander took Greek and Macedonia and came up with the Antigonid Empire. Ptolemy seized the Egyptian Empire and came up with Ptolemic Empire. Lysimachus took significant part of Asia Minor and Thrace, and Seleucus formed the Seleucid Empire made up of India, Babylon, Syria, and Persia.

The newly partitioned regions were ruled the same way as before. There existed fruitful business environment between the kingdoms. Kings of each kingdom gathered abnormal amount wealth which they enjoyed displaying. The idea of expansion of Greek influence continued to gain momentum as their language and culture spread throughout the kingdoms.

The problems were few because the rulers of the conquered kingdoms were allowed to govern according to their initial system even after the Alexander. The supply of Soldiers to join the army was done as usual. The problem was that the army was not that much superior compared to the one during the reign of Alexander. Due to their weakness, they were defeated in several occasions and this eventually led to their complete during the Roman conquest. They were defeated in 31 BC (Alston, 2014). This is the period when the Roman started to expand their empire.

References

Alfoldy, G. (2014). The Social History of Rome (Routledge Revivals) (1st ed., pp. 13-18). Florence: Taylor and Francis.

Alston, R. (2014). Aspects of Roman History (2nd ed., pp. 423-428). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Marconi, C. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture (pp. 269-276). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Place your order now for a similar assignment and get fast, cheap and best quality work written by our expert level  assignment writers.Use Coupon Code: NEW30 to Get 30% OFF Your First Order

FAQs

How are Rome and Greece different?

Rome and Greece are different in several ways. Here are a few key differences:

1. Historical Timeline: Greece was an ancient civilization that emerged around 800 BC, while Rome was founded much later, in 753 BC. Greece developed earlier than Rome, and many of Rome’s cultural achievements were inspired by Greece.
2. Government: The government of ancient Greece was a direct democracy, in which citizens voted on laws and policies, while ancient Rome was a republic, in which citizens elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf.
3. Religion: Ancient Greek religion was polytheistic, meaning that they worshipped many gods and goddesses. Ancient Rome, on the other hand, was also polytheistic but had a different pantheon of gods and goddesses.
4. Art and Architecture: Greek art and architecture were characterized by a focus on balance, proportion, and harmony. The Romans, on the other hand, were more concerned with engineering and practicality, and their architecture reflected this.
5. Language: Greek and Latin are two different languages. Greek is an Indo-European language, while Latin is an Italic language. The two languages have different alphabets, grammars, and vocabularies.

These are just a few of the differences between Rome and Greece. Both civilizations have left a lasting impact on the world, and their legacies continue to influence art, culture, politics, and philosophy to this day.

Similarities and differences between Greek and roman civilization

Greek and Roman civilizations share many similarities, but also have some important differences. Here are a few key similarities and differences:

Similarities:

1. Both civilizations were located in the Mediterranean region and had access to sea trade and maritime resources.
2. Both civilizations emerged as city-states and later expanded to become empires.
3. Both civilizations were polytheistic and had a pantheon of gods and goddesses who were worshipped in temples.
4. Both civilizations placed great value on the arts and literature, including epic poetry, drama, and philosophy.
5. Both civilizations had a significant impact on Western civilization, and their ideas and cultural achievements continue to influence us today.

Differences:

1. Greece was an ancient civilization that emerged around 800 BC, while Rome was founded much later, in 753 BC.
2. Greek civilization was based on city-states, while Roman civilization was based on a centralized empire.
3. Greek democracy was a direct democracy, where citizens voted on laws and policies, while Rome was a republic, where citizens elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf.
4. Greek art and architecture were characterized by a focus on balance, proportion, and harmony, while Roman art and architecture were more focused on practicality and engineering.
5. The Greek language is an Indo-European language, while Latin is an Italic language. The two languages have different alphabets, grammars, and vocabularies.

Why was Ostia important to the city of Rome?

Ostia was important to the city of Rome for several reasons, primarily due to its role as the ancient city’s principal harbor. Here are some key reasons why Ostia was important to Rome:

1. Gateway to the Sea: Ostia served as the gateway through which goods, resources, and people entered and exited Rome by sea. This was particularly significant for a city as large and influential as Rome, as maritime trade was vital for the supply of commodities such as grain, oil, and other essential goods.
2. Economic Importance: The port of Ostia played a pivotal role in the economic prosperity of Rome. The arrival of goods from various parts of the Roman Empire and beyond contributed to the city’s economic growth and sustained its population.
3. Trade Hub: Ostia was a bustling trade hub where merchants, sailors, and traders from different parts of the Mediterranean converged. This not only facilitated economic exchange but also allowed for the cultural exchange of ideas, customs, and products.
4. Military Significance: The strategic location of Ostia made it crucial for the defense of Rome. Controlling access to the Tiber River through Ostia helped protect the city from potential naval invasions and secured its maritime borders.
5. Transportation Hub: Ostia was not only a seaport but also a transportation hub. The Tiber River provided a direct route for transporting goods from the coast to the heart of Rome. Ostia’s position at the mouth of the Tiber made it an ideal location for the transfer of goods from sea vessels to smaller rivercraft.
6. Urban Development: The city of Ostia itself served as a residential and commercial center, housing a diverse population engaged in various economic activities. As a result, the development of Ostia was closely linked to the expansion and sustenance of Rome.
7. Administrative Center: Ostia also had administrative functions, overseeing the customs and taxation associated with maritime trade. This helped ensure that Rome benefited economically from the goods passing through its port.
8. Cultural Exchange: Beyond its economic and strategic importance, Ostia facilitated cultural exchange between Rome and the diverse regions with which it traded. The city’s cosmopolitan nature reflected the broader cultural diversity of the Roman Empire.

Rise of the Roman Empire:

The rise of the Roman Empire can be attributed to several factors, including military conquests, effective governance, and cultural assimilation. Rome’s expansion began in the 5th century BCE, and by the 1st century BCE, it had established itself as a dominant power in the Mediterranean. Key factors include:

1. Military Success: Rome’s well-disciplined and organized military played a crucial role. Successful campaigns and conquests expanded Roman territory, bringing wealth and resources.
2. Political Stability: The Roman Republic, with its system of checks and balances, provided political stability. This allowed for efficient governance and administration of conquered territories.
3. Romanization: The Romans assimilated conquered cultures, allowing for a cohesive empire. Roman law, language (Latin), and governance systems were imposed, creating a sense of unity.
4. Infrastructure and Engineering: Rome invested in impressive infrastructure, including roads, aqueducts, and public buildings. This not only facilitated trade but also showcased Roman engineering prowess.
5. Social Structure: The Roman social structure allowed for upward mobility, enabling talented individuals from various classes to contribute to the empire’s success.

End of the Roman Republic:

The Roman Republic ended in 27 BCE with the establishment of the Roman Empire. The transition was marked by the rise of Augustus (Octavian), who became the first Emperor.

Fall of the Roman Republic:

The Roman Republic fell due to a combination of factors, including political corruption, military problems, and social unrest. The power struggles among political elites, coupled with the weakening of the Roman legions, led to a series of civil wars.

The final blow came with the rise of Julius Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BCE, leading to a power struggle that ultimately resulted in the demise of the Republic.

Three Forms of Government in Ancient Rome:

Ancient Rome underwent three main forms of government:

1. Monarchy: Rome began as a monarchy, with kings serving as rulers. This period ended with the establishment of the Roman Republic around 509 BCE.
2. Republic: The Roman Republic featured a system of checks and balances, with elected officials, a Senate, and popular assemblies sharing power. This lasted until the rise of Augustus and the transition to the Roman Empire.
3. Empire: The Roman Empire, characterized by rule by emperors, centralized power and lasted from 27 BCE to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE.

Roman Social Classes:

Rome was divided into two main classes:

1. Patricians: The patricians were the elite and aristocratic class. They held political power, served in the Senate, and came from established, wealthy families.
2. Plebeians: The plebeians constituted the common people, including farmers, merchants, and artisans. They had fewer political rights initially but gained more influence over time.

Roman Society Organization:

Roman society was organized hierarchically:

1. Senators and Equestrians: The elite class involved in politics, military service, and business.
2. Common Citizens: The majority of the population engaged in various professions.
3. Slaves: Enslaved individuals who performed labor and were considered property.

Plebeians vs. Patricians:

Plebeians:

• Common citizens.
• Initially had fewer political rights.
• Mainly engaged in farming, trade, and craftsmanship.
• Could participate in the popular assemblies.

Patricians:

• Elite class.
• Held political power and served in the Senate.
• Came from wealthy and established families.
• Initially, had exclusive control over high offices.