The Ancient Greeks and Romans both started their societies as city-states. While the unpredictable coastline and the harsh terrain of the Greek landmass separated the different Greek city-states from each other, the city of Rome was situated in the topographical center of a for the most part north-south plain verged on the east with mountains and on the west by the ocean. Rome was more presented to the movements and attacks of individuals from the Po River in the north and Sicily in the south. The two essential ethnic and social impacts upon the Romans were resolved to a degree by this topography. That is, the main impact was that of the Etruscans in the north, and the second real impact was that of the Greeks in the south. When the citystate of Rome had developed as an unmistakable element out of its Etruscan causes and was setup to extend its own one of a kind impact, Greek progress had spread all through the Mediterranean bowl. Notwithstanding, the wild selectiveness of the Greek city-states from each other, coming from their geological disconnection, had verified that Greek colonization of the Mediterranean would be an expansion of secluded city-states. The Greek polis did not allow the working of a Greek realm, and the strict obstructions to the expansion of citizenship kept any one city-state from getting to be plainly predominant. As we have seen from Greek history, the Athenians were headed to making a realm through their control of the Delian League, however this pattern was switched in the Peloponnesian Wars. The Romans, then again, expedited different groups the Italian promontory under their control, first by triumph, and afterward by stretching out Roman citizenship to components of the vanquished people groups. After some time, in the cauldron of wild, unremitting clash amid the Punic Wars, the general population of the Italian landmass came to distinguish themselves as Romans. There are, in this manner, two key segments in the accomplishment of the Romans in building a domain. One clearly was their military ability, and the other was their authoritative/political/lawful expertise in expanding their administration over the vanquished people groups into the realm. The Romans did not mean to make a domain, but rather they reacted to dangers from their neighbors, first on the Italian landmass, at that point from Carthage in the western Mediterranean, at that point from Macedonia in the east. As every foe was vanquished, the Romans got themselves attracted to keep the peace ( that is, to keep up their control) among the vanquished people groups. This procedure prompted the making of armed forces made up of vast quantities of Romans who were isolated forever from the land, wound up noticeably proficient fighters, and must be bolstered by the state. The armed force and its officers turned out to be powerful to the point that they in the long run represented a risk to the political foundations of the Roman Republic. At the end of the day, the victory of Rome’s adversaries, pulverized the Republic and prompted the production of a royal government. From the earliest starting point of the historical backdrop of Rome, the very power which made the realm, that is, the armed force and its commanders, would likewise be the reason for its ruin. The Roman Empire would keep going for a long time, in any case, and the establishments of its continuance rested upon the augmentation of the Roman feeling of character to vanquished people groups; that is, to “brutes”. Likewise essential were Roman law, and political aptitudes practiced in the Senate and by a portion of the all the more extraordinary sovereigns. The Greek city-states must be joined by drive, first through the attack of the Macedonians, and afterward by the Romans. Be that as it may, the Greeks would, one might say, have the last chuckle. Their way of life was more refined, their learning and reasoning further developed. The Greeks intensely depended on rationality and permitting the more established and smarter to run their method for living, government and economy. In spite of the fact that, what they were known for was their awesome writing and learnings. Inverse with regards to the Romans, Greeks truly did not satisfy overcoming other city states or places. They rather did things, for example, plays (which were usually polished in Greece) and musical dramas which were by and large consolidated in the plays. The Greeks craftsmanship was, indeed, more better than the Romans workmanship. The Greeks primary concentration in workmanship could be said to have a solid focal concentrate on different masterful structures while the Romans craftsmanship tended to concentrate on more sensible pictures. Despite the fact that, they both used fundamentally the same as materials for their stone workers both utilizing white marble. This being on the grounds that this was presumably the most productive way and best material for design amid their circumstances. Greeks models and statues had a tendency to be made on divine beings and goddess while then again similarly as their different bits of works, the Roman bits of fine arts were more practical.The Greeks art was, without a doubt, more superior to the Romans art. The Greeks main focus in art could be said to have a strong central focus on various artistic forms whereas the Romans art tended to focus on more realistic portraits. Although, they both did use very similar materials for their sculptors both using white marble. This being because this was probably the most efficient way and best material for sculpture during their times. Greeks sculptures and statues tended to be made on gods and goddess while on the other hand just as their other pieces of works, the Roman pieces of art works were more realistic. The economy of Greece and Rome, depended on farming. Greeks lived on little independent wheat-creating ranches, however terrible horticultural practices made numerous families unequipped for bolstering themselves. Big estates took control, delivering wine and olive oil, which were additionally the main fares of the Romans—not very shockingly, given their mutual geological conditions and the prevalence of these two necessities. The Romans, who imported their wheat and added regions that could furnish them with this extremely imperative staple, likewise cultivated, however they additionally occupied with exchange. (It is suspected that the Greeks considered exchange corrupting.) As Rome developed into a more urban way of life, historians thought about the straight forwardness/ rudeness/ moral high ground of the nation’s peaceful/ cultivating life, with the politically charged, exchange based existence of a downtown area tenant. Assembling was additionally a urban occupation. Both Greece and Rome worked mines. While Greece additionally had slaves, the economy of Rome was subject to slave work from the extension until the late Empire. The two societies had coinage. Rome degraded its money to support the Empire. In conclusion, the Greek and Roman empires were indeed very similar and at the same time different in several ways. Things like their geographical features, encounters, art, and economy were all different and alike in their own ways, Overall,you can say that both of the empires were successful empires when it came to a complete reflection of it. Without these two empires, would today’s world still be the same?