Daily dose of Byzantium:

From "Change in Byzantine Culture in the 11th and 12th Centuries" p56.

While there was economic growth in provincial towns during the 11th and 12th centuries, this was not accompanied by political liberation. Subjugated to the state, to the episcopate, and to the landed magnates,the urban populations did not become an independent, antifeudal political and cultural force.

I think I rather agree with this comment piece by Simon Jenkins:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/sLY4AYdzQNHKuj41C1_S3Xg/view.m?id=276024&tid=120787&cat=Comment

(sorry for the mobile version, I'm on my phone):

Walking on Wirral today - the 'Dungeon' just off the Wirral Way.

Donating platelets at the moment. It's a little uncomfortable, but is something I'm very committed to. Means I'll be late home again though.

Currently on the train coming back from an EFQM workshop in Birmingham. This is something I've been interested in for some time, and have finally managed to get the funding to do. I've little interest in the assessment process. But EFQM feels like being given the instruction booklet for leadership, really insightful stuff. Of course, it help that I once worked for someone I respected who was evangelical about it.

Just finished reading Alan Harvey's thesis "Economix Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900 to 1200". Good stuff but a little heavy. I like the genesis of a Marxist interpretation. The Byzantine state doesn't fail in the 11th century because the economy is in decline, but because the mode of production has shifted. Large landowners are more prevalent, and have less and less interest in the maintenance of a centralised state. Concessions to Venice are not weakness, but a rational facilitation of the expansion of the economy and trade. In the end, the state collapses because of these contradictions which *do* end up fatally weakening it long before the turks or crusaders arrive to finish it off.

Like I said, fascinating stuff.