THE DEVELOPMENT OF the aristocratic genos in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was intimately connected with contemporary politics, especially at the highest level. The influence of emperors or empresses was felt primarily in two ways. First, elite families in Byzantium were never completely independent from imperial influence. Throughout the period covered here (and beyond), imperial office and title, alongside the support of the imperial throne, continued to play a decisive role in determining the fortunes of aristocratic families. The Byzantine aristocracy remained an aristocracy of imperial office-holders. Second, the changing of imperial dynasties and the nature of imperial legitimization had a tangible effect on the rest of the Byzantine aristocracy. After the end of the Macedonian dynasty in 1056, emperors were forced to find alternative methods of legitimizing their rule. One method was through the “nobility” or “illustriousness” of their family lines, a fact that reverberated throughout the rest of high society. The period between 1056 and 1081 was one of instability in imperial politics, but it was simultaneously a time of heightened concern among the elite regarding family cohesion and identity. The dynasty founded by Alexios I Komnenos in 1081 would in turn harness this development within the imperial government itself, morphing the genos into a centripetal, rather than a centrifugal force.

The imperial government has predictably remained a central focus in modern scholarship. As Michael Angold argues, contradictory assessments of the eleventh and twelfth centuries typically hinge upon the “effectiveness of the state.” For Ostrogorsky, the weakening of the central government at the expense of the growth of power and influence of “feudal lords” caused the empire's decline over eleventh century.