Anthonius I believe tries to point out that the art of war was a science in Constantinople, and that the Eastern Roman commanders had more theoretical training than their Western counterparts. Now theory is one thing, and practice another, as evidenced by history, wehere not every single Eastern Roman Emperor was a great tactician - some were, and some were not. The Eastern Romans devoted considerable effort to study their enemies, devising manuals for dealing with them and copying successfull tactics and weapons. However, as evidenced by the plentiful defeats they had to endure against pretty much all their neighbors, great theoretical knowledge and training was not enough to ensure victory. Anthonius has a good point about overtaxation creating internal dissent and helping bring about the collapse of the Empire, but I think he should also consider giving the deserved credit to the Byzantine enemies', especially since one of these enemies succeeded in creating an Empire of proportions, similar tot hos of the Eastern Roman Empire at the end of Justinian's reign. At the end Western and Turkish tactics and military technology simply proved to be better.