The change was radical in the quality of the housing, public spaces, and the defense; but rather conservative in the church and religious building. The renaissance brought revolution in the terms how people wanted to live and enjoy the life. The medieval housing quality was rather poor. It was impersonal, based on simple practicality, and lacking comfort. It was only the size of the house and its location to show the wealth. The late medieval era and the rise of renaissance changed that.. people wanted to have nice comfortable housing, well planned, decorated, furnished, surrounded by nice items. Tiles, frescoes, stainless windows, flooring, and cassette ceiling became widespread and symbol of wealth, comfort, and opulence. Even medium size cities had experienced this housing revolution. The wealthy nobility abandoned castles and build comfortable chateaus.
<span>As the housing had improved, so did a public places. Medieval cities were dirty, rundown, with commercial and other activities happening in the street. The renaissance started to appreciate nice public place, squares, and avenues, and town halls around Europe had invested significant resources into beautification of them. Squares were cobbled with central focus points like fountains, statues, and other monuments. Majority of the present day European cities have their look modeled in that era. The change was revolutionary, that people enjoyed to see their cities, its images, portraits became widespread, and the wealth of the city was on display. </span>
<span>As the renaissance progressed, the original Italian style was replaced with the Northern European renaissance. The Italian was dominated by geometric spaces such as square and rectangle; and its dominant color was white. However, the rich classes wanted to show more wealth, and later period was significantly colorful, and with various details like graffiti,statues (often based on Roman mythology), and cast iron railing.</span>
I think this question needs a personal opinion for the answer, but here's what i would say-
I believe that a two-party system, although it categorises the two sets of basic values of both Americans, excludes other beliefs and values that are silenced in a two-party system.
-Hope this is what you're looking for, maybe add more of your opinion to it?
Answer:
it's c I had this ok m a test and got it right :)
Martin is against of the Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise as he does not want to slavery anymore.
<h3>Who opposed
Martin Luther?</h3>
Despite initially opposing Luther's views and identifying as the "defender of the faith," King Henry VIII of England split with the Catholic Church in the 1530s and brought England under the broad reform movement.
Luther was more and more enraged at the clergy for selling "indulgences" that promised absolution from the consequences of sin.
Thus, option D is correct.
For more details about Martin Luther, click here:
#SPJ1
<span>Thatcher believed détente promoted cooperation but did not think it would deter Soviet attacks.
</span>
