The classic theory, as put forth by Esmenar Runciman, suggests that Xerius knowingly nudged the Vulgar Holy War into Kian in order to send a message to maithanet that Xerius was not a man to be trifled with. This kind of one-dimensional scapegoating, however, has been recently called into question.

Of particular note is the timing - Esmenar's work was published just after the public shaming of Anasurimbor Kellhus by his former mentor and teacher, Drusas Achaimian. Kellhus, though considered by many to be a prophet and true Aspect-Emperor, was standing on shaky political ground at the moment Esmenar's history came out. He was a foreigner and despite his exploits was distrusted by many who had not participated in the Holy War.

Esmenar's narrative sought to smooth away Kellhus's blemishes and present an image of religious piety and preternatural awareness (and, let's face it, he makes a lot of impossible claims as to Kellhus's supposed abilities) to unify the Inrithi under his tyrannical control. Xerius made an easy target, as the Nansuri were never fully trusted by the "true" Inrithi. In any case, that was the argument put forth by Caphrianus. he is biased toward the Nansuri, to be sure, but his evidence makes a lot of sense, and Esmenar tended to ignore politics in order to advance the holier elements of the Holy War.

So how much truth is there to the revisionist theory? I find the argument compelling, even with Caphrianus' clear bias.