That the conquest of Greece and the renewal of cultural contact with the east affected Rome and its institutions, seems irrefutable. When looking at art, for example, such influences become obvious; sculptures such as that of a Roman triumphator (Zanker 1993, fig. 1) have a blatant shock value in dispensing with the traditional Roman honorific pose (Zanker 1993, fig. 4), but also clearly allude to earlier Hellenistic portraits of kings and gods such as Polykleitos’s ‘Spear-bearer’ (Woodford 1982, fig. 1.23) and point to a vigorously renewed interest in the Greek culture during the mid-second century BC. We might expect, therefore, such a vigorous take-up of ideas to also manifest itself in the structure of Roman towns. However, here it is rather more difficult to discern the direct effects of the conquest – that is not to say of course that Roman urban development was not hellenized, merely that identifying this hellenization as being a direct result of the second century conquest is less easy. The aim of this essay, therefore is to examine the Hellenic influences on urbanization amongst Roman and ‘italic’ peoples and to determine which of these influences can be attributed directly to the second century conquests.

Where, then might we look for evidence of such influence? Perhaps the most characteristic evidence of hellenization would be the existence of a Hippodamic style plan, namely a unified cohesive town plan with an orthogonal layout with the buildings arranged so as to have a direct relationship with each other. Such settlements abound in Italy particularly in Roman colonies such as Norba, Alba Fucens and Cosa with the methodology having been carried through to its ultimate, and perhaps extreme, extent at Aosta and Timgad. However, the earliest ‘Italic’ settlements to exhibit this structural design have a far earlier genesis than the second century BC, and therefore cannot have been directly influenced by the conquest (though of course the conquest may have renewed interest in such designs). The peoples of the Italian peninsula had long been in contact with Greece through its colonies and it is this influence, particularly in Campania and Latium, which we see coming through in settlements such as Cosa (though for settlements in Samnium, see below). However, as Owens has pointed out (Owens 1991, 110), these towns were not simple copies of the Greek originals and exhibit an adaptation to Roman requirements to form a comprehensive system of planning based on the military nature of Roman colonization and probably encompassing Etruscan methods. So the existence of a Hippodamic inspired structure to a settlement cannot, in itself, be taken as direct evidence of the effects of the conquest.

Turning briefly to the literature, we see that the heavy influence of Classical Greece on writers such as Vitruvius is obvious and is clearly a consequence of the influx of Greek thought. His debt to Aristotle and Plato frequently surfaces in De Architectura, but little of what he describes seems to have been current practice in Rome. The impression one gets from his work is of an author trying to create an ideal which despite his supplications to Augustus does not seem to have been carried through in practice.

Where else might we look for such evidence? The buildings themselves seem to be the most obvious choice. What characteristically Greek building types appear in Roman cities during the mid-second century BC? One such structural type which may have a Greek origin is the basilica which, etymologically at least, would appear to be derived in some way from basileus, with early examples in Rome including the Basilica Porcia (184 BC), whose principal function was to hold the law courts. Claridge (Claridge 1998, 53) suggests that the point of origin may be the Royal Stoa and that early Roman examples may have been strikingly similar to a large porticus. By the late Republic the design had evolved to include a central nave with columns and flanking aisles as at the Basilica Aemilia (55 BC) and Basilica Julia (46 BC), suggesting that any design affinity with aGreek original was short-lived. Nevertheless, the date of the first example in Rome does suggest a degree of Hellenic influence which may tentatively be associated with Rome’s first Greek victory of 197 BC.

A more clear-cut descendant of the Greek stoa exists in the form of the porticus – these structures are clearly of Greek origin and once again make their appearance in Rome in the second century BC (though the Porticus Aemilia would appear to be a misnomer). Their use reached its zenith during the reign of Augustus with the Porticus of Gaius and Lucius exhibiting further Hellenic influences in the architectural motifs used to adorn the structure; in a pointed reference to the Stoa Poikile in Athens, the frieze of the lower order depicts scenes from Roman history (such as the Rape of the Sabine Women) in a similar manner to the paintings in its Athenian antecedent.

Theatres too demonstrate close ties with Greece, the Roman structures being a direct evolution of their Hellenic counterparts, though engineering advances such as the use of Opus Caementicium allowed for a free-standing cavea and hence a more flexible building type. Theatres in Greece generally had a religious aspect (such as the Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus), and this theme can frequently be seen in the positioning of such structures within Roman cities, the Theatre of Pompey being a prime example of the interrelationship between theatre and religion. The second-century BC Samnite theatre-temple complex at Pietrabbondante, which serves to remind us that not all urbanisation took place in cities, is however much closer in form to Greek structures with a solid Opus Caementicium block being used to artificially enhance the topography.

The facing of this structure in Opus Quasi-Quadarata suggests an attempt to imply the antiquity of the settlement and hence its legitimacy in the landscape. The form of the theatre remains rather Greek, but the location of the temple immediately behind the cavea is unusual and may have provided inspiration for Pompey’s edifice. Whilst the theatre as a structural type is clearly derived from Greece, determining whether its appearance in Italy was a direct consequence of the Conquest is problematical, for permanent stone theatres do not appear, in Rome at least, until the mid-first century BC. However, this late appearance of the form can be ascribed to reluctance on the part of the Senate to sanction displays of luxuria and hence the theatre does appear to be a form concomitant with the influx of new ideas following on from the Conquest of Greece. Consideration of public buildings could not be contemplated without an examination of temple design, and here perhaps more than any other building type, the Romans remained faithful to their Etruscan origins. Roman temples can, in general, be seen to be quite unlike Greek ones – they are axial, designed to be viewed face-on and stand on a high podium to enable the auguries to be taken. Religious precedent dictated that such temples had to be laid out in a rectangular form and thus the tholos so regularly seen in Greece, is rare in Roman cities. Of the three round temples known from Republican Rome, all show Greek influence – the temple in the Forum Boarium (notably lying just outside the pomerium) is generally ascribed to Hercules – a foreign cult despite the association of Hercules with the immediate area whilst the Temple of Vesta may be a transposition of Hesta another foreign cult (though one seen to be at the very heart of Rome).

The cella of traditional Roman temples was usually to be found peripteros sine postico due to the emphasis on the front of the temple, with most religious observances being taken in front of the cella rather than within it. However, with the renewed interest in Greece which coincided with (or perhaps slightly predated) the conquest, a fascination developed with the peristyle and despite continuing to use the podium, temples were frequently adorned in a pseudo-peripteral manner, such as the Temple of Portunus (c.80 BC) in the Forum Boarium. Interestingly two of the three republican victory temples at S. Nicola in Carcere dating from the very early second century BC are fully peripteral, but retain the axial emphasis. So here, perhaps we have evidence of an initial blending of Hellenistic influence with a respect for Roman/Etruscan tradition. The Greek gymnasium played an intrinsic role in public life, rather than being merely a place for exercise, gymnastics was seen as being complementary to other arts such as music and literature leading to the development of philosophical schools based at each of the three ancient Athenian gymnasia. However the Roman counterpart – the campus did not have the same nature, a place primarily for preparing the youth of the city for war, these institutions were forced to occupy the area outside the pomerium (no armed troop was allowed to cross this sacred boundary).

Roman prudishness when taking exercise in public made these places far less attractive than their Athenian counterparts. However, following the conquest these structures become somewhat more integrated into Roman cities. At Herdonia, for example, a building which appears to have been a campus occupied a pivotal position on the forum with a very Greek-style ‘hero/founder’ tomb dominating its fa?ade. A shrine, presumably dedicated to Augustus occupies a prominent position echoing the shrines of gods like Hermes & Heracles which existed in Athenian gymnasia. By placing his image at the heart of such a public place, Augustus demanded the loyalty of the townsfolk whilst establishing himself as the new patron of the town, not necessarily displacing the local elite, but subjugating them nevertheless.

The effect of Hellenization on domestic structures also warrants some attention. The fascination with the peristyle has already been mentioned, but its adoption in the Roman house reveals a facet of the Roman character. The traditional roman house was centered around an atrium with rooms leading off, the chief room – the tablinum – being directly opposite the entrance. Respect for tradition compelled the retention of this plan, but the desire to incorporate the Greek peristyle led to a remarkably simple adaptation where a peristyle was simply ‘tacked-on’ to the back of the house. Further evidence of hellenization is clear in the use of first-style wall painting. This begins to appear in Roman tombs in the mid-second century BC, but is soon adapted into a domestic setting and clearly alludes to the decoration of earlier Greek houses (Woodford 1982, 76). Here then, surely, we have evidence of a direct cultural influence deriving from the mid-second century renewal in Greek interest.

Thus far I have examined the physical manifestations of Roman urban life, but there is a wider aspect to the effect on Rome of the increased contact with Greece. As we have already seen, Roman generals began in the second-century to have themselves portrayed in the Greek style, that is naked and adopting the pose of Hellenistic kings or gods. This attitude was not restricted solely to the aesthetic, for the practice of euergatism – conspicuous civic beneficence – became widespread. The conquest of overseas territories had released enormous amounts of war booty to the victorious generals and adopting the practice of Hellenistic kings, many of them turned to public munificence as a means of distributing this wealth and, more importantly, as a means of self-aggrandizement. Building on a pre-existing tradition of Roman noble families taking responsibility for particular buildings, this practice of public benefaction became greatly affected by the opening up of the newly conquered territories to the east. Not only was wealth now available for major projects, but Rome also had access to the intellectual, technological and artistic talent to facilitate such development. The intellectual influence of Greece was to provide the driving force behind projects which were to help stabilise the position of the ruling elite. Early examples of such a practice include the construction of the Basilica Sempronia by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in 169 BC and the restoration of the Temple of Castor & Pollux by Lucius Aemilius Paullus to commemorate his victory at Pydna in 168 BC. The theme of victorious generals vowing temples was to become a recurrent one and one which perhaps reached its peak in the construction of the Temple of Mars Ultor commemorating the defeat of Caesar’s assassins at Philippi. However, a backlash to this overwhelming philhellenism was to develop. Rome began to exhibit a curiously ambivalent attitude towards Greece; led by Cato a faction opposed to the influence of what was perceived as Greek licentiousness acquired strong support in the senate, with charges of luxuria preventing the widespread adoption of monumental & grandiose building works. This is perhaps why despite her wealth, Rome failed to acquire a permanent theatre until Scaurus’s lavish work in 56 BC. Even then such a scheme attracted criticism and in the following year Pompey was careful to assuage possible senatorial criticism in the construction of his theatre by including a temple to Venus Victrix "under which we have built seats for viewing the shows". The design of this theatre is said to have been influenced by a visit to Mytilene in 63 BC, but also bears remarkable similarities to the second century Samnite sanctuary at Pietrabbondante.

However, the practice of euergetism really took-off with the construction of the Forum of Caesar (54 BC), a building which not only fundamentally altered the shape of Rome, but which firmly identified its creator (and its creator’s gens) with the state. Augustus seized on this precedent to radically restructure the centre of Rome constructing a sequence of buildings which effectively commemorated his (and ‘Rome’s’) victory at Philippi, whilst emphasising the position of the ruling family. Here we see this process of public benefaction used to present a very political message in establishing a new dynasty. These structures were to lay the foundations for the architectural experimentation which was to characterize the first two centuries AD. With Rome acting as a nodal point for this means of public display, wealthy citizens were swift to adopt similar practices in their own cities where conspicuous, and even competitive, philanthropy became an intrinsic part of urban life. Despite sumptuary legislation, an upsurge in the number of building projects attracting private sponsorship has been noted by David (David 1992), particularly in Latium and Campania, but the process was to become even more widespread even reaching Britain in the mid-first century AD where the pro-Roman client king Cogidubnus (whose title of Regni Magni reflects the Greek Basileus Magnus) is seen vowing a temple to Neptune & Minerva. The continuation of this system, with the encouragement of the imperial house, provided both a means of rationalizing Rome’s financial gains overseas whilst monumentalising the city and her colonies and can be considered to be the primary behavioural trait inherited from the Conquest of Greece. It is this process which fuelled the Augustan architectural revolution and which led to the construction of huge complexes such as the imperial fora, whilst encouraging the cult of the individual.