You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)
But since the raids were driven by Christian aggression in the first place,
Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression. I don't agree with that. Why would the first attack have been made in England? It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat, and the realization that there were soft targets.
places which Really Don't Need Bling.
I'm inclined to agree with that.
I will note, however, that Christendom did not become a relatively decent place to be until the Rennaissance,
Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth -- and remain such until the Mongol invasions were followed by the Little Ice Age, the Black Death, and the rise of the Turks.
Much of the Christian world was a thoroughly nasty place until the 1700's at the earliest.
Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.
Was it you who claimed that the only explanation for the conversion of so many to Christianity and its subsequent succes was due to it being miraculous/correct?
Not exactly. I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.
> You mean the now non-Christian Scandinavians will roll over for dhimmitude :-)
No, the Scandinavian lands are still reasonably Christian, just sorta laid back about it. Pity their Viking blood was thinned by centuries with the White Christ...
> Your saying the raids started because of Charlemange's aggression.
Timing and choice of target seems to back that up.
> Why would the first attack have been made in England?
Because it was close. A better question: why were the first raids conducted against churches and monasteries, as opposed to other concentrations of wealth? Why the apparent anger at Christianity? As archaeology has shown, the Norse tolerated other religions with no difficulty whatsoever. This is not surprising for polytheists. You got your gods, I got mine, ain't no problem there. But when one particular religion begins to wipe out your people and your culture... you fight.
> It is my understanding that the raids began because of new technology -- namely the longboat...
The Scandinavians had had decent boat tech for quite a while, more than adequate for the job.
> Actually, it became a fairly decent place right after the Age of the Vikings ended -- common culture, easy trade, growing wealth
I disagree.
> Much of the world was a thoroughly nasty place in the 1700s. Much of it is a thoroughly nasty place now. We are lucky to live in America.
Yup. Three cheers for our pagan ancestors who gave us the rule of law and energetic capitalism! Huzzah!
> I was referring to the early Christian church when it had no earthly power, and the powers that be were unremittingly hostile to it.
Hardly. For a few decades, the Christians were largely ignored by the Roman empire as just another cult. Again, see to the Mormons and the Scientologists for examples of how much a religion can grow in just a few years. Plus, there was political genius in the basic idea of Christianity, whether it was true or not: people whose lives sucked, find out that a centuries old prophesy has come true, and it's just a matter of time until everythign will be just great. All ya gotta do is believe and wait a little bit... any day now... Again, as history has shown, such religious beliefs are remarkably successful at drawing adherants.