The city Dur-Sharrukin of Neo-Assyrians rose on southwest Asia had a militaristic social structure which was reflected on their approach to the city plan and architecture and may explain the reason behind big scales of the palace of Sargon II’s which may also made for an approach ,like those of the pyramids, to be showing the exaltedness of the ruler. Similar to the Egypt, the city was erected on an orthogonal city plan differing with it’s monumental sizes. Palace of Sargon II’s was placed on a higher level from the rest of city, with it’s ziggurat. Behind the grid like organisation of the city, entries to the palace was remained without any directing element leading to an indirect access. Likewise the houses in Mesopotamia, the palace was shaped around a courtyard as the main source for receiving the light in.
Archaemenids were differing from all those cultures observed through their time, by being a multinational society including Indus and Nile valleys, all of Turkey, some Greek coasts and Macedonia. Cyrus the Great raised the capital at Pasargadae consisting also his tomb and palace. Multicultural anatomy of the archaemenids gave rise to several structures give the sense of whole architectural approaches of different regions. Another city had been in the ascendant was Persepolis where the palace of Darius I was looming above the city likely the palace of Sargon II. The columns are mostly the most surprising elements of the palace due to their number resulting in obtaining tiny spaces in such a big emptiness.
Greek City States and Hellenism
The most city of Athens might be considered as one of the best examples of the classicism which meant both to a proportionally and orderly arrangement of architectural elements and the ornamentation of sculptures and some details but expressed with some restrictions in Greek architecture compared to the Hellenism. The shift on the approach of classicism was shaped through changing regimes in which the social structures and classifications result in alterations on the concept and methods of architecture.
Athens was a democratic city where the open public spaces were taken the place ad importance of tombs and giant palaces. Public buildings and temples were placed on a higher level however the “agora”, the open air gathering place, was the heart of the city. It’s boundaries was not strictly defined but from my point of view, the existing of stoa was giving a definition to the emptiness of agora. Another addition of Greek architecture is the theaters.They are perfect samples of integration of both topography and structure becoming a single composition in which the nature is used as an architectural element.
Greek temples are differing from all those temples produced until this era. I personally defining them as monumental statues in which you can go to inside and pass through. Their exaggerated amount of columns does not really let them to be a space for gathering since it becomes harder to see other spaces that the columns are dividing due to highly sight blocking numbers of them. The temple is directing the passenger along a deep corridor of columns.to the statue of Greek gods Artistic care of the era can be witnessed from the friezes and statues on the pediment area yet the inside has a simpler organisation.
After the city’s decline, Hellenism was born without the restrictions of the ideal of relatively simple classicism and showed itself with its artistic details both in architecture and sculpture. In order that while the ionic and corinthian expression was enhanced, the doric order was pushed on the back burner. Pergamon, the city of Hellenistic urbanism, was separated into upper and lower cities unlike the city plan of Greeks. Imperial palaces gained rise again in this time and positioned on the upper city as a depiction of social classification.