Discuss the range, style and structure of Roman Architecture with reference to specific examples.

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

08/05/2007

FARAH QURESHI OCTOBER 2003

DISCUSS THE RANGE, STYLE AND STRUCTURE OF ROMAN ARCHITECTURE WITH REFERNCE TO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.

Towards the end of the ancient Greek Hellenistic period of art, there emerged a newer stronger interpretation of architecture. This interpretation was created by the Romans. These Romans were fast developing as the new world leaders. This may have something to do with the human nature of the Romans in comparison to the Greeks; the Romans were more aggressive. However, it may also have something to do with the fact that the Romans had strong communicational skills, thus, military greatness was achieved, and perhaps, in this case, more importantly, they were people that were far more practical than the Greeks or, indeed, any others at the time. In other words, the Romans were far better engineers than any of the other civilisations before them. We can see this through the architectural remains of this great civilisation. The Romans were, indeed, famous for their advancement in architecture and engineering.

What is evident from the remains of the architecture is that the architectural style of Rome was firmly rooted in the Hellenistic Greek traditions. Before the Romans, the most commonly used building style was the post and lintel. The post and lintel systems were limited in the weight it could carry and the span between the supports. What the Romans developed and interrelated into the Greek architectural style was the arch. The arch was, indeed, a revelation in the world of architecture. What had been the common, less supportive structure of the post and lintel, so commonly seen in the Greek temples, had now been replaced by the strength of this new arch. The Roman invention of the arch allowed architects to build larger structures than ever before. This arch was far stronger than the post and lintel. It was relatively easy to make with the scaffolding in place and the support was held in place with the ‘keystone’. The weight was able to be more evenly spread from the keystone down towards the bottom of the arch, providing more stability to the structure. The scaffolding used here was able to be re-used to produce arches of the same size. This proved to be useful in the construction of the Roman aqueduct. This was built at a higher level, composed of two layers of arches that would have the ability to carry water from either a source in the hills or a reservoir to settlements. The Romans chose the arch as the dominant element of their architecture inserting it in all their buildings in order to characterise the supporting structures. This was evident in both interiors, such as in basilicas and temples, both of which are architecturally concentrated on the interior of the building. Examples of these are the Basilica Ulpia in Rome and The Maison Carree in France. The Basilica was set out to have a Nave, a double-column double-aisle on wither side of the Nave and apses on either end of the hall. The Maison Carree, however, we can see as representing the new style of temples set out by the Roman architects. The new style shows how much the Roman architecture had developed at this stage from the Greek influences. Some of the major differences between Roman and Greek temples, as can be seen through studying the example of The Maison Carree are as follows:

Roman temples were built on an elevated plateau, with a staircase in front. This can be contrasted to Greek temples, which were built on a stylobate which had a base of three steps.
The Greeks placed the statue of a god in the Naos, which the Romans later translated to be the ‘Cella’, whereas the Romans mostly placed the statue in the absis.
In contrast to the Greeks, the Romans used pilasters (half columns)
Roman temples are monopteral, meaning they have only one colonnade, whereas Greek temples can be both monopteral as well as dipteral (having ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Roman temples were built on an elevated plateau, with a staircase in front. This can be contrasted to Greek temples, which were built on a stylobate which had a base of three steps.
The Greeks placed the statue of a god in the Naos, which the Romans later translated to be the ‘Cella’, whereas the Romans mostly placed the statue in the absis.
In contrast to the Greeks, the Romans used pilasters (half columns)
Roman temples are monopteral, meaning they have only one colonnade, whereas Greek temples can be both monopteral as well as dipteral (having a double colonnade).
The Roman temple was designed to be placed in the town centre, or the ‘Forum’. This was different from Greek temples, which were designed to be placed on an acropolis. This is why the Greek temples had columns on every side of the temple; it was designed to be seen from all angles. Because of this, Roman temples had columns on the front side only, as they would have been surrounded by other buildings.

The Romans took and borrowed a lot of things from the Greek culture. One example given was the development of the Roman temple from the Greek (The Maison Carree). Another example was the way they took Greek gods and renamed them (for example, Athena, the Greek goddess of crafts, domestic arts and war, was renamed Minerva by the Romans). The gods and goddesses, however, although renamed, were still worshiped as much by the Romans as by the Greeks. The extensions of the arch idea lead to the development of domes. The Romans developed the idea of a pantheon, a sanctuary to the worship of many gods.

The Pantheon was dedicated to the twelve Olympian gods. It was the first temple to combine concrete construction--a technique in which the Romans were especially innovative--with the more conservative if decorative use of Greek classical orders. Originally, the visitor approached the temple through a courtyard precinct, where the main altar was located. A colonnade on three sides of this courtyard served to mask from view a sight of the real domed form of the building. Only the classical portico with huge un-fluted columns of black and red Egyptian granite could be seen. Attached awkwardly to the curvilinear drum of the building, this portico peak hid the hemispherical dome that gave a clue to appearance of the interior. The interior of the Pantheon greets the visitor with an unexpected yet exhilarating explosion of space. To begin with, the height of the building from floor to ceiling is an incredible 142'. The Pantheon was a completely free-standing building, and the first hemispherical domed structure. Its concrete drum, rising from a point beginning one-half the actual height of diameter of the building, circumscribes a complete sphere within its volume.

The concrete dome is stepped, that is, the drum, 20' at base, tapers in stages on the outside as it rises to its zenith at the "eye" or oculus, a hole thirty feet in diameter where the concrete is only 90" thick. Supported by a wall 24 feet thick--in turn built upon a ring of concrete foundation 15 feet thick--the dome is not actually as heavy as it appears. The lowest concrete aggregate was made up of heavier gravel (mostly basalt) which was gradually replaced by lighter materials such as pumice closer to the top. To further lighten the dome and facilitate the drying of the concrete, empty clay jugs were embedded in the upper courses. The walls themselves were reinforced with hidden brick relieving arches, and rather than appear as massive mural spaces, they were penetrated by alternating curved and square niches that act as piers to hold up the dome. This was truly a remarkable advancement in the skill of Roman architecture and engineering.

Another thing that the Romans ‘borrowed’ from the Greek way of life was the Greek theatre. Although the types of entertainment the Romans preferred were different to the Greeks, the architecture was similarly constructed. However, whereas the Greeks preferred interiorly decorated theatres, which usually were constructed on a naturally downward facing hill to see the stage, the Romans used their skills as engineers to construct an individual building. The Colosseum - the greatest of the antiquity - was built in Rome, Italy, about 1920 years ago. It is considered an architectural and engineering wonder, and remains as a standing proof of both the grandeur and the cruelty of the Roman world. The Colosseum is in shape. The building stands on a base of two steps; above it there are three floors of arcades. The ground floor half columns are Doric in style; those of the second floor are Ionic and those of the upper floor are Corinthian. There were eighty arches on every floor, divided by pillars with a half column.

The development of the arch brought about an incredible advancement to the architecture of the Romans. The final example I will give will be the development of a pure arch structure itself; the triumphal arch. In ancient Rome and in all its empire, power was exalted by the building of triumphal arches. They were conceived to appear in front of the people as an eternal frame to the victories of the man-god: the emperor. Triumphal arches constitute a typical element of Roman architecture. These structures, whilst having an autonomous functional value as a gate, also have a monumental and commemorative character. The emperor, returning victorious from the campaigns, was honoured solemnly by building a symbolical victory arch. The Arch of Constantine, in Rome, was erected in honour of the Emperor Constantine. Triumphal arches usually embody one or more arched passages. This is a three-way arch, measuring 21m in height, 25.7m in width and 7.4m in depth. The central archway is 11.5m high and 6.5m wide, while the lateral archways are 7.4m×3.4m. Eight detached Corinthian columns, four on each side, stand on plinths on the sides of the archways.

As far as Roman Architecture goes, it is difficult to compare it with that of other nations, because the Romans applied architecture to so many and such varied purposes, and so constructed monuments involving both architectural and engineering skill, as to make it doubtful to what class they belonged. The Romans were the first people to treat architecture as a minister to the numberless needs of a great nation. Before them, except in the Greek theatres, it had served the gods, the royal families, and the dead, alone. Roman Architecture is our connection with the most advanced civilization of its time. In Rome, ancient history ends and modern history begins; and all her story, both the old and the new, possesses a fascination thus far unequalled in history; and that this fascination should ever be equalled by another nation seems now beyond imagining.

Page of