Differences And Comparison Of Architecture In Europe, Rome And Roman Architecture

1002 Words5 Pages
A civilization’s architecture not only shows the artistic skills of its designers and builders but also the functionality of its engineers, the power of its government, and the inventiveness of its people. Architecture was a crucial element to the success of two major cites in Europe, Rome and Athens. Each city had structures consisting of formal architecture like temples and basilicas showing the influence that its leaders had over each city, while utilitarian buildings like bridges and aqueducts helped build communication between distant cities throughout each empire. Though architecture as a whole was an important role in unifying the cities, the architecture design within each illustrates the similarities and differences between two. [1] Practical engineering architecture, such as aqueducts and roads, provided Romans with wider access to other Roman cities. Aqueducts enabled the Romans to supply sufficient water to its cities, while paved roads provided for easier trading and communication, and city walls protected it from outside intruders. [2] Similar to Rome, aqueducts were used to transport water, but not necessarily for the same reason. Athens was primarily supplied with water from local springs and wells and used the aqueducts to export water while in contrast Rome used aqueducts to import water. [3] The construction of temples was particularly important to Emperors as religion and politics were highly aligned with the Roman world. The building of a temple was

More about Differences And Comparison Of Architecture In Europe, Rome And Roman Architecture

Open Document