[Renderofveils]

Islam spread solely by the sword; Christianity did not spread by the sword at all, with perhaps the exception of Charlemagne subduing the Saxon revolt, but even there, the initial embrace of Christianity was voluntary.

---

No, it was spread with rifles in western America (those pesky stubborn Injuns) and flames in northern Europe. The only thing that saved any record of the Norse history was that the Christians couldn't sail worth beans at the time. "Convert or die" was used by the Christians, same as the "modern" Muslims. And yes, I do differentiate between current Christians and those of the past. I realize the methods have become more peaceful, and I wish Islam would follow Christianity's lead. Unfortunately it'll probably take another thousand years as THESE Dark Ages pass.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Sorry, you are dead wrong. What you write about Europe is what the Enlightenment mythmakers would have you believe, the same mythmakers who gave us the peaceful enlightened tolerant spread of Islam which they used as a cudgel to beat up on Christianity. You've swallowed their bilge.

When chieftans and kings converted their followers followed them. Modern folk think that the followers were thereby coerced. But that's because we have no understanding of how one can voluntarily follow a leader.

Was there violence accompanying the conversion process? Yes. When one chieftan or prince or king converted, in nearly every nation, other princes or chieftans opposed it and it was not uncommon for the new Christian leader to pay for it with his life, which might lead to further violence. But the basic rule holds (with some minor exceptions): Christianity did not spread by the sword and anyone who claims the contrary betrays how little he's read in the contemporary sources.

[Cronos]

get real. That was not the case.