What is one difference between rome and florence in the renaissance?

The Renaissance of Rome was a spectacular affair. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, Rome was the shadow of what it was when it was the seat of the powerful Roman Empire. It had a population of about one million in the first century, which declined to about 25.000 at the beginning of the fifteenth century.

In Rome, the Renaissance began with Pope Martin V and continued under the following popes who ordered the construction of many religious, public and private monuments that contributed to enrich and embellish the city. Many of these buildings could be constructed from old marble monuments. The Imperial Forums were the quarry for the new Renaissance marble monuments.  

During the Renaissance, Rome appeared as a work, the city remembers the archaeological excavations in which were found many historical remains of ancient Rome, for example, the famous Domus Aurea of Nero. The Church ordered the restoration of churches and monuments thanks to the great architects and painters of that time. In particular, the buildings and churches of Rome were enriched with frescoes and decorations of rare beauty that can still be admired today by visiting the city.

The Renaissance church has the symbolic cross shape (Latin or Greek) and was covered by a flat dome, often covered by vaults that replaced the Medieval domes and cross vaults.

Florence, the symbol of the Renaissance, rose in order to dominate cultural and economically in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, under the Medici government. Its 600 years of extraordinary artistic activity can be seen especially in the cathedral of Florence (13th century), in the Basilica of Santa Croce, in the Uffizi, in the Palazzo Vecchio, in the Palazzo Pitti, and in the works of the great masters like Giotto, Brunelleschi, Botticelli, Leonardo and Miguel Angel.

In Florence, there was an indisputable theater of the Renaissance and that is why it was called as "the cradle of the Renaissance" since artists, painters, architects and sculptors moved to Rome, where they later left some of their famous works to the world.

john locke, hope this .

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is