Basileos, your question is really a puzzler. Why did the Empire make such a dramatic change toward feudalism and at that particular time? The issue of the "haves" vs. the "have-nots" had certainly been a problem recognized long before 1025. The small peasant holdings were being gobbled up by the large landowners, and often the Macedonian emperors tried to defend the peasants' rights. ('Long ago, in a Byzantine group far away' at Ancient Sites, some of us 'played' at being Macedonian emperors and had acquired a sense of this dynamic as a backdrop to all the vicious court intrigue.) Was the motivation simply to keep the army strong with recruits from the lower classes?

A. A. Vasilev in his History of the Byzantine Empire also mentions "military holdings", small landholdings along the borders for soldiers, as being in a state of decline before and during this period. The magnates were buying these up too.

Then, there were terrible famines and plagues to deal with. The rich would take the opportunity to buy up land at very low prices. Folks were more interested in putting bread on the table than holding on to the family farm. That's not hard to understand even today.

Of course, the court and the military were often partisans with their own candidates for emperor. The rapid change in emperors during a time of trouble doesn't help the poor. What were the small landowners to do in such a political environment?

Going back to Emperor Basil II, we see orders set up to force the richer neighbors to pay in full the taxes of their poor neighbors. This was the allelengyon or mutual warrant. Vasilev recounts that Emperor Romanus III Argyrus (1028-1034) repealed it to gain the sympathy of the wealthy and to help reconcile clergy and wealthy. That makes me wonder how the Church fits into the feudal equation in Byzantium.

The Novels of the Macedonian emperors seemed to have gradually disappeared during the eleventh century. I don't know if they could have turned things around if strongly enforced or not. Of course, the external threats on the Empire at the time must have made the pressures on finding a more immediate answer a terrible burden. Somehow, the small landowners are said to have survived this period though it seems at a much reduced vitality. With all that said, and not in a very scholarly manner on my part, I'm truly sorry to say, I'm left wondering if this ultimately doesn't reduce itself to some sort of a debate about how best to defend the Empire in crisis. My two bezants. I hope others will add to the discussion!