Hello all,

i am asking the help of somebody able to help me figure-out something.
I just end a holiday in Italy, mostly Firenze, and my knowledge on the rennaisance age is all messed up.

I have been in Italy many times before, but never had time for more than just business.
Now i spent a lot of time visiting museums and listening to local versions of the stories and my envisage vision about rennaisance is messed up.

Briefly, i KNOW all the theory about rennaisance. but it doesnt fit well into my conclusions.
I conclude:
1. after roman empire fall, all levels of culture was shrinking. It was a dark age in all matters.
2. small kingdoms with no power and influence were fighting each-other. Not so much a basement for developement.
3. Church and local mini-kings were the power-centers attracting most of the finnancial and influence energy.
4. after the local Giovanni dalle bande nere manage to become enaugh influent to increase the influence of the family, they started to centralize church and local-administrative powers into the benefit of a single family.
5. Having local kings, influence in church, bishops, popes, and so on, the Medici family were becoming fast, incredible rich.
6. As they wanted "style" they have created demand for a different kind of art.

This is my simplified theory of the Rennaisance. In this cynnical approach, the rennaisance, the "umanism" was not a turn-back to human as main focus of art. Was simply a pretext to offer the chance to someone called himself "il Magnifico" to order a portrait.

I mean, that "magnifico" had it all: political power, religious power. All he missed was a frame for his portret. Meaning a different direction of arts.

In this light, the main representants of the age, starting with Giotto and ending with Michelangelo, were just executants of a decadent source of request.

Please someone bring back to me the envisage light of rennaisance :), with a less cynnical theory of that era.

Please dont "wikipedia" me, i have done the research myself. No chance to find there a different theory. I dont need pieces of information, i need some linked information guiding to a coerent conclusions.

PS.
If this thread is boring, sry.

Yeah I took AP European History this year and that was the first thing we covered. Sadly I failed the AP test because I don't remember anything from this. I used to but not now. Prolly why I failed.