Some historians, such as
Frank Stenton, have viewed the massacre as a political act which helped to provoke
Sweyn's invasion of 1003. Audrey MacDonald states the massacre eventually led to the accession of
Cnut in 1016. Other historians are more sympathetic to Æthelred.
Simon Keynes in his Oxford Online
DNB article on Æthelred described it as the reaction of a people who had suffered under repeated Danish attacks through mercenaries who had turned on their employers. Ian Howard believes the massacre was committed in response to the treachery of Æthelred's mercenary army, Æthelred's biographer Ryan Lavelle suggests that the massacre was probably confined to frontier towns such as Oxford, and larger towns with small Danish communities, such as
Bristol,
Gloucester and
London within territory under Æthelred's control, noting lack of remorse shown in the Oxford charter which exploited ethnic hatred and
millenarianism. It is clear that the massacre was not widespread. Numerous historians agree that not only was a campaign of widespread extermination across all of England implausible, but that there is extremely limited archaeological or historical evidence for wholesale slaughter. The killing in Oxford almost exclusively targeted males of military age. Historian
Levi Roach also notes that it is impossible to conclusively link the mass grave in Oxford and those elsewhere to St. Brice's day, as there was regular sectarian violence across England during this period. That the
Danelaw remained calm and content under Æthelred's hegemony has been taken as evidence that the killings were local to certain areas at best. "Needless to say," writes Ann Williams, "the decree was not aimed at the English of Scandinavian descent living in the eastern shires." Only a few years after the massacre, Æthelred granted land to a Dane named Toti outside Oxford, and many Scandinavian figures remained at his court, demonstrating that the St Brice's Day decree was not an order for a general extermination. ==See also==