You chose to go to a time and place after the collapse of much the classical world, mostly at the hands of Islam either directly or as a result of economic collapse that they spurred by their piracy and incessant warring (climate change can cause famines and help plagues along, but it takes men to really make a disaster) to prove that Christians were infamous for burning books?
If early Christians were so destructive then why was there so much from the Classical world for Islam to burn? Or indeed why had anything accumulated in Europe after Charlemagne when Europe was struggling in the aftermath?
Even the example you might have chosen, the burning of part of what little then remained of the LoA at that time, was really about the pagans who had barred themselves inside — not that I’m saying them seeking revenge on the pagans was in any way imitating Christ, it wasn’t and they sinned grievously in the matter, but that the event in question was about the people and not the books.
Now, if you truly wanted to try to show at least some Christians to be anti-learning you might have instead cited the insistence that lay people shouldn’t have the Scriptures which was really about consolidating power over them to rule, and not as they claimed to prevent heresies. Of course you would still have to allow that those folks were resisted by other Christians, who did what they could without access to printing presses to maintain a faith founded among people who valued knowing Scripture.
Jezz is your history weak. Do your own research of the history of the period from 1000 BC to 1600 AD.