 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 . 
