Thread by @rfhirst

The St. Brice's Day massacre of 13 November 1002 during which King Æthelred ordered "a most just extermination" of those Danes living in England is one of the widest known yet most misunderstood events in English history. One key of import is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew.

In chapter 13, verses 24-30 St Matthew relays Christ's parable of the tares/weeds. At the heart of this parable lies the problem of evil for the tares represent sin which is allowed to be sown by the devil amongst either a people or a person on account of a lapse in watchfulness.

It is this which King Æthelred referred to in a charter from 1004 wherein he likened the Danes to tares which had sprouted up amongst his English wheat. This, then, paints the Danes as chiefly a moral, rather than political, threat and so places the massacre in a greater context.

The outbreak of the Second Viking Age in the 980s was not seen as something unto itself but rather as a punishment for the sins of the people. The king's primary response to the renewed attacks, therefore, was religious in that he sought foremost to call his people to repentance.

In tracing developments within the English Church during the 990s one sees this end being pursued with ever greater vigor but to no effect. As the call to repentance grew louder the Viking attacks grew more violent and the English were endlessly frustrated on the field of battle.

In 994 London was attacked, being saved only through the intercession of the Mother of God. The enemy then turned and across Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire "did the greatest damage that ever any army could do". In 997 the Danes wrought terrible death across Cornwall and Devon.

In 998 Dorset, where rested King Æthelred's holy namesake and great-great uncle St. Æthelred, was ravaged. In 999 Rochester, where the second bishopric of the English Church had been founded nearly 400 years prior, was sacked and the Vikings "destroyed and ravaged all West Kent".

Upon the turn of the millennium the long-suffering English became desperate for an end to their misery. Their desperation was compounded by eschatological concerns for at this time western Europe was in a frenzy over the widespread belief that Christ's Second Coming was imminent.

It was at this most sensitive moment that the worst attack thus far came. In 1001 the enemy launched raids across the whole of England, often punching inland and laying waste to the interior. The fortunate died in armed resistance while the survivors were subjected to atrocities.

One band which attacked Devon was there joined by a Dane named Pallig and his ships. Together they defeated a cobbled together English army, killing both of the king's reeves who led it, and went on to raze to miserable ash innumerable villages across Devon and the Isle of Wight.

This Pallig had been a mercenary whom King Æthelred had allowed to settle in England in return for defending her coast. Despite being showered with generous gifts of land and gold, when the opportunity arose Pallig broke his sacred oath and savaged those he was charged to defend.

Shortly thereafter reports began coming in that the other bands of Danish mercenaries whom the king had settled across England were likewise plotting betrayal, though now with a greater aim. They intended on killing Æthelred as well as his chief men and taking control of England.

As from the beginning this was seen as a result of a religious problem. The king had tolerated evil in allowing bands of pagan mercenaries to settle in his land. Against the backdrop of apocalyptic concerns, this was likely seen as something England was poised to be punished for.

In the more immediate sense, it is evident that Christ's parable now came to Æthelred's mind. As if asleep he had allowed tares to be sown, and those tares now threatened to suffocate his good wheat. The only recourse now was to uproot them, bind them and cast them into the fire.

Royal writs were sent out and on St Brice's Day 1002 men from across England took up arms and attacked their nearest mercenaries. The aforementioned charter of 1004 relays the massacre as it happened in Oxford which saw the local Danes burned alive in the church of St Frideswide.

To date there have been found two mass graves which are widely believed to contain those killed in King Æthelred's massacre. One was found in Oxford where the bones of several skeletons showed signs of charring while the other was found in Dorset where each man had been beheaded.

What is important to note about these graves is that every skeleton in either had belonged to a man of military age. Isotopic analysis has revealed that all of the men found originated from outside of Britain, having been born and raised in traditionally Scandinavian territories.

This is important because popular perception of the massacre, epitomized by its depiction in the TV series 'Vikings: Valhalla', holds that the English targeted both women and children as well as Danes who had been settled in England for generations. None of this is true, however.

Over the past several decades every scholar who has studied this topic like Roach, Abels, Keynes and others has been unanimous in their stating that this massacre was limited to recently arrived Scandinavian mercenaries and was not the genocide that it has before been painted as.

The above excerpt sets forth the case succinctly, though we might add to it. The story of Gunhild's death and mentions of any women being killed all come exclusively from post-Conquest writers. The complete silence of pre-Conquest sources in this regard, then, is quite deafening.

The often laconic Anglo-Saxon Chronicle might not mention it but the Encomium Emmae Reginae doubtless would, the main purpose of this document being to bolster the legitimacy of King Cnut, Gunhild's nephew. However, the only victim of the massacre mentioned is Thorkell's brother.

The killing of women, then, just like the killing of babies and most other facets of popular perception are alone inspired by Norman and Anglo-Norman historians who wrote to fulfil various agendas. When these are set aside we are presented with a very different picture of events.

Speaking from provable facts, that the massacre was a pre-emptive strike against foreign mercenaries who were poised to overthrow the government, Keynes said "there might be good cause if not to applaud then at least to condone rather than deplore the massacre of St Brice's Day".

Roach, while accepting as true the same broad facts as Keynes nevertheless with several other scholars does not come close to saying that the massacre can be condoned, said in his book on the king that "we do not have to approve of Æthelred's actions in order to comprehend them".

Indeed, to that end we have here endeavored to bring the reader, if only in basic terms, for unless one has something of a knowledge of all the many things weighing heavily upon England during the 11th century then one can not comprehend King Æthelred's "most just extermination".