 An analysis by F. W. Mote concluded that at the time of the Liao dynasty's fall, "the Liao state remained strong, capable of functioning at reasonable levels and possessing greater resources of war than any of its enemies" and that "one cannot find signs of serious economic or fiscal breakdown that might have impoverished or crippled its ability to respond". Mote also concluded that acculturation did not lead to the replacement of traditional Khitan values with Chinese culture, and that the Khitan commoners were "supremely able and willing to fight", which Mote pointed to as evidence that Khitan society remained strong. Mote instead attributes the fall of the Liao to the leadership ability of Aguda and to the actions of the Khitan Yelü and Xiao clans, which used early defeats at the hand of Aguda as a pretext for plotting the overthrow of Emperor Tianzou. Historian Jacques Gernet disagrees with Mote, writing that "by the middle of the eleventh century the Khitan had lost their combative spirit and adopted a defensive attitude to their neighbors, building walls, ramparts for their towns, and fortified posts." Gernet attributes this change to the influence of Buddhism, which abhors violence, as well as to Chinese wealth and culture in general. Like Mote, Gernet attributes the ultimate downfall of the Liao to the interference by the ruling clans, and he additionally credits a series of droughts and floods, as well as attacks by the Jurchen tribes on the north-east edge of Liao territory, with weakening the Liao to a critical level.
