Sort of like when they asked Dillinger why he robbed banks.
“Because that is where the money is.”
True, as far as it goes.
They were anti-Christian. It added to their zeal in raiding. Sorry, it’s the truth.
You might ask the first Vikings to convert to Christianity about how lovey-dovey kind and generous the pagan Vikings were. You want to make them out into strictly fiscal thugs. They were both fiscal and religious thugs.
And before you come back with, “well Christianity spread by the sword,”
it’s
just
not
true
Islam spread by the sword. Christianity
did
not.
Even in the case of Charlemagne forcing the Saxons, it was forcing them to return to the Christianity they had embraced. Perhaps they hadn’t embraced it for the right reasons (fiscal Christians), perhaps he should not have violently forced them back—criticize him if you wish
but don’t cite it or other examples of Christianity spreading by the sword. Not even in Mexico or India did that happen. As long as the European powers tried to force it by the sword, it failed. In Mexico it was the apparitions of Mary at Guadalupe. In India it was the direct opposition to Portuguese “fiscal Christianity” by Francis Xavier that brought about the first significant conversions.
And don’t tell me about Clovis driving his army through the river to “baptize” them against their will. He didn’t do that. Yes, when he converted (via the persuasion of his wife), his army and people joined him, but they did NOT do so at the point of the sword. Loyalty was everything for the Franks (and the Vikings) and followers followed their leader but not at the point of a sword.
The point of the sword lie was created by Enlightenment Christian-haters (who came out of a truly state-church situation, which was a modern and Protestant invention) as part of their propaganda campaign.
“Because that is where the money is.”
Actually, Willie Sutton said that in response to the question as to why he robbed banks.