Ancient Rome Vs Classical Greece

I would have to say Classical Greece was greater the Ancient Rome. Many more man of science, literature, medicine, architecture, came from Greece than Rome. Democracy was also a Greek invention. When Ancient Rome was a greater military power I can't see where it would match the achievements of Classical Greece.

I agree with all of the previous comments.

Not like comparing oranges with oranges, or even with apples and oranges.
More like comparing fruit with buildings, cannot be done.
Rome and Greece were different, and just as diverse as people are.

I collect the coins of each, just for what each happens to be.
However, I do prefer ancient Greek art, especially in the way it is expressed on ancient Greek coins.

It does depend on how you define "greatness". The Greeks invented much of what we consider "good" about the ancient world in terms of culture and science - coins being just one of their inventions that we still use. But is this enough to consider them the "greatest"?

The Roman main claim to fame - "greatness", if you will - is their legacy of conquest; while other ancient empires were bigger and richer, few lasted longer (especially if you consider the Byzantine period as an extension of the Roman period) and none other ever managed to assimilate the entire Mediterranean basin, and with it most of Europe. While I tend to agree with Yoda that "Wars not make one great", the legacy left behind by the Romans has proved very enduring and pervasive. Even here on the far side of the world where the Romans never came in person, our country has a "Roman" name, not a "Greek" one, and Roman ideals live on here - underpinning concepts such as our legal system, our government structure, and the very design of the coins we still use; these are all copied from Roman models rather than Greek ones. Even this alphabet that we're using to communicate with is basically the same as the alphabet the Romans used, and quite different to the Greek one.

One could argue that much of what was "great" about Rome (such as their art and architecture) was stolen from the Greeks after the Greeks had been assimilated, but I would argue that even if they had not stolen those things, Roman concepts and cultural remnants would still be just as pervasive in society today. I therefore voted "Rome".

I am firmly on the side of Greece too... the Romans achieved much but their culture was so heavily influenced by the Greeks - the idea of copying manuscripts from ships that cane into port, scientific enquiry and the Socratic principles of debate were just genius. Military achievents impress me less... mans ambition to dominate others is nothing to be celebrated in my opinion.

Edison invented the lightbulb. Did it stay as he had patented it? Would you prefer the first form or its latest?

Rome built upon the legacy of Greece, and utilized them in advancing those innovations. In terms of longevity, Rome established a more elaborate and long lasting form of government than any of the Greeks had done. The Romans had indoor plumbing with running water, and heated flooring - implying innovation in architecture that was miles ahead of the Greeks. Do you associate aqueducts with Greece or Rome? How about paved roads?

Let us not be too idealistic about what it takes to make for "greatness." Not all of life is art.

Any folk who could eagerly march into, survive, and flourish for many centuries in the wilds of northern europe coming from the sunny mediterranean gets my vote.
Yes, much of it was in the name of conquest and had a distinct and strong (and sometime unsavory) military aspect, but they also left behind enduring architectural, organizational and also technical advancements which in general advanced the lives of the peoples the romans conquered.
No, you cant't compare the two, but overall Rome gets my vote.

just as Romans do with laws (codex of Napoleon is based on Roman laws , European codices on Napoleon ) , with technics , with language (French ,Spanish , English , Italian )...