The Greeks, like many other civilisations, “learned and borrowed from their predecessors” , using the architecture of the past to shape their own built environment, including their temple architecture. The form of Greek temples was influenced by the use of columns in imposing Egyptian temples, and indeed also shaped by other cultures architecture, for "the great "barbarian" lesson was monumentality, the power of an architecture of public scale built of cut stone" . There was lots of experimentation in the design of Greek temples, but as time passed, several common features became standard. Temples built by the Greeks generally take a similar form to that of the Megaron: a central cella or naos, with a portico outside, supported by columns. In general, …show more content…
The elaborate pediments, columns modelled after the classical orders, and the impressive monumentality of porticos and steps seen in Roman temple architecture are taken from their forerunners: the Greeks and the Etruscans. Unlike Greek temples, which tended to be rectangular, Roman temple plans have "little uniformity" since there were "too many models available" and "too many competing architects" . Roman temples had a wide variety of shapes and features: some annular like the Pantheon, some rectangular and pseudoperipteral like the Maison Carrée. Generally, however, Roman architects tended to favour height over length in their temples: high podia, such as that of the Temple of Portunus, were commonplace. Roman temples further differed from those of the Greeks in that rather than having a cella which was positioned in the centre of the plan of the temple, which was usually peripteral, the cella tended to be offset, with the portico to the front of the plan, and the cella to the back. Roman temples tended to be pseudoperipteral, rather than fully peripteral like the temples of the Greeks. … (little bit of