However, I'd be interested to know what interpretations in particular have been attacked. I seem to remember when I read his history of Byzantium that I found a few points with which to argue, and in Venice I thought he went too easy on the Venetians for the Sack of Constantinople (see above discussion), but the general terms of his history seemed pretty reasonable - his analysis of the slow corruption of the state to the point where a troublemaker like Zen, even when pointing out actual violations of Venetian law, was seen as a nuisance to be removed, for example, was in keeping with the facts as he presented them. Also, Venice's decline was all but assured when sea routes to the Far East opened up. I'm struggling to find something in particular in the history I read that seemed far off the mark.