There are many forms of government practiced in Renaissance Italy. With this in mind, the main functions of the government were to create and enforce laws and institutions (republics); as well as make laws by decree (signori). (Najemy, pg 195) Also, the government’s were responsible for public order, control of violence, justice, military/war, tax/finance, and diplomacy. (Najemy, pg 195)
Thinking about this, enforcing laws and institutions, as well as making laws by decree are both very important jobs that only the government should be dealing with. I feel this way because the government’s are superior to most other individuals. It is also beneficial for the government’s to be responsible for public order, control of violence, justice, military/war, …show more content…
(Najemy, pg 185); while the signorie is a stable government and has social peace. This difference already played a role in which side was going to be more successful; as well as which side of the government most people wanted to be following. In addition, the communal governments basic principal is the separation of legislative and executive functions. Similarly, executive functions oversaw day to day business of administration, finance, military, and diplomacy. (Najemy, pg 186) They also had rights to initiate legislation, as well as proposals became laws when approved by larger councils. Unfortunately, participation did not extend to everyone in the population. With this said; women and clergy classes were excluded. This was an unfortunate downfall of the system that needed to be worked on in the future; but made sense during this time period to occur.
When it comes to who can hold office; citizens eligible have to go through either voting councils, representatives of guilds/neighborhoods, or both. Similarly, Venice acquired representatives for stability that were admired by others. (Najemy, pg 187) Antiquity had cities claimed the right to institute their own governments and make law for themselves without authorization from a superior power. Early theorists also defended communes. These are also examples of the many forms of government and leaders of each area to help create a successful Italian …show more content…
(Najemy, pg 191) The councillors served without any label under office, as well.
Then in 1385, Giangalea divided his council into the “Secret Council” and the “Council of Justice”. The Secret Counsel was mostly in Pavia, and handled foreign policy, war, diplomacy, finances, etc. It was also the court of highest appeal. Then, the Council of Justice was in Milan to deal with more routine administration. The difference between the kingdom and signore is the tradition in origin periodic meetings. The effectiveness of the government also depended on crowns relations of nobles that were creating the signorie.
Going forward, territorial states were an important change in the government because it incorporated formerly independent cities and signorie into territorial states. (Najemy, pg 193) However, none of these were brought into the republics or signorie because they did not have the right to be. This led to weak ties; as well as that the territorial states were administered by the commissioners and had to mediate between local population and the capitals. (Najemy, pg
Thinking about this, enforcing laws and institutions, as well as making laws by decree are both very important jobs that only the government should be dealing with. I feel this way because the government’s are superior to most other individuals. It is also beneficial for the government’s to be responsible for public order, control of violence, justice, military/war, …show more content…
(Najemy, pg 185); while the signorie is a stable government and has social peace. This difference already played a role in which side was going to be more successful; as well as which side of the government most people wanted to be following. In addition, the communal governments basic principal is the separation of legislative and executive functions. Similarly, executive functions oversaw day to day business of administration, finance, military, and diplomacy. (Najemy, pg 186) They also had rights to initiate legislation, as well as proposals became laws when approved by larger councils. Unfortunately, participation did not extend to everyone in the population. With this said; women and clergy classes were excluded. This was an unfortunate downfall of the system that needed to be worked on in the future; but made sense during this time period to occur.
When it comes to who can hold office; citizens eligible have to go through either voting councils, representatives of guilds/neighborhoods, or both. Similarly, Venice acquired representatives for stability that were admired by others. (Najemy, pg 187) Antiquity had cities claimed the right to institute their own governments and make law for themselves without authorization from a superior power. Early theorists also defended communes. These are also examples of the many forms of government and leaders of each area to help create a successful Italian …show more content…
(Najemy, pg 191) The councillors served without any label under office, as well.
Then in 1385, Giangalea divided his council into the “Secret Council” and the “Council of Justice”. The Secret Counsel was mostly in Pavia, and handled foreign policy, war, diplomacy, finances, etc. It was also the court of highest appeal. Then, the Council of Justice was in Milan to deal with more routine administration. The difference between the kingdom and signore is the tradition in origin periodic meetings. The effectiveness of the government also depended on crowns relations of nobles that were creating the signorie.
Going forward, territorial states were an important change in the government because it incorporated formerly independent cities and signorie into territorial states. (Najemy, pg 193) However, none of these were brought into the republics or signorie because they did not have the right to be. This led to weak ties; as well as that the territorial states were administered by the commissioners and had to mediate between local population and the capitals. (Najemy, pg