How were the natural conditions, occupations, and governance of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome different and similar?

a) The territory of Italy is more suitable for agriculture, the climate is mild, it rains more, its regions are not so isolated from each other as in Greece.
b) The occupations of the inhabitants are similar in that both of them were engaged in agriculture, fishing, metal processing.
c) Both in Greece and Rome, there was a People’s Assembly in the work of which men took part, only indigenous people. Kings were elected in Rome for life, in Sparta there were two kings, power was inherited, but was not great.

The art of ancient Rome, like that of ancient Greece, developed within the framework of a slave-owning society, therefore, these two main components are meant when they talk about “ancient art”. The art of Rome is considered the completion of the artistic creation of the ancient society. In the works of the ancient Romans, in contrast to the Greeks, symbolism and allegory prevailed. Accordingly, the plastic images of the Hellenes gave way to the picturesque among the Romans.

The Roman master, in contrast to the Greek, who saw reality in its plastic unity, was more inclined towards analysis, dismemberment of the whole into parts, and a detailed depiction of the phenomenon. In ancient Rome, sculpture was limited mainly to historical relief and portrait, but fine arts with an illusory interpretation of volumes and forms-fresco, mosaic, easel painting, which were poorly common among the Greeks, developed.

Architecture has achieved unprecedented success both in its construction and engineering and in ensemble terms. The Romans also had a new understanding of the relationship between artistic form and space. In Roman architecture, which usually amazes with its ensemble scope, preference was given to closed forms. The architects loved pseudo-peripetra with a colonnade half recessed into the wall. If the ancient Greek squares were always open to space, like the Agora in Athens or other Hellenistic cities, then the Roman ones were either enclosed, like the forums of Augustus or Nerva, with high walls, or settled in the lowlands. The same principle manifested itself in sculpture.

The plastic forms of Greek athletes are always presented openly. Images, like the praying Roman, throwing the hem of his robe over his head, are for the most part enclosed in themselves, concentrated. Roman masters in sculptural portraits focused on the personal, individual characteristics of a person.

The system of Roman architectural and plastic images is deeply contradictory. The compactness of forms in them is only apparent, artificial, caused, apparently, by imitation of the classical models of the Hellenes. The attitude of the Romans to form, volume, space is completely different from that of the Greeks, based on the principle of breaking through boundaries and frames, on the eccentric, not concentric dynamics of artistic thinking. In this sense, Roman art is a qualitatively new stage in man’s aesthetic assimilation of reality. The attraction of Roman artists to classical Hellenic forms, which evokes a sense of the duality of Roman monuments, is now perceived as a manifestation of a kind of reaction to the innovations that announced themselves. Realized by the Romans, the loss of the integrity of artistic forms often forced them to create buildings of enormous size, sometimes grandiose, in order to at least by this make up for the inconsistency or limitation of images. Perhaps it was in this connection that the Roman temples, forums, and often sculptural works were much larger than the ancient Greek ones.

Remember: The process of learning a person lasts a lifetime. The value of the same knowledge for different people may be different, it is determined by their individual characteristics and needs. Therefore, knowledge is always needed at any age and position.