Recent research into raids on monasteries in Ireland seems to indicate that at least half the raids were not carried out by Vikings. This source quotes the following statistics:

A.T. Lucas dispelled the notion that the Vikings alone were the despoilers of monasteries. He cited the fact that on the 309 occasions when ecclesiastical sites were plundered between the years 600 and 1163, the Irish were responsible for half of the attacks and in nineteen instances the Irish and Norse combined forces.

Another source (M & H. Whittock) says that, in Ireland between 795 and 820, only 26 of 113 attacks were carried by Vikings. The authors then add

We should not expect anything different for Anglo-Saxon England. As early as the late seventh century, Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury (Wiltshire), had been forced to negotiate a special arrangement with the kings of Mercia and Wessex to prevent them targeting his monastery, since it was sited in a border zone between the two rival Christian Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

It is well established that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms spent a lot of time raiding and fighting each other. The main sources for these pieces of evidence were written by monks and priests who have usually been cited by modern historians as being biased against Vikings.

Concerning the above, I have two supplementary questions to the main question:

1. Has there been a similar analysis of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles which will back up M & H. Whittock's assertion that "We should not expect anything different for Anglo-Saxon England", and has there been any statistical analysis of the Frankish chronicles?

2. The statistics refer to raids on ecclesiastical sites. Is there any indication in the chronicles / annals as to whether non-ecclesiastical sites were more or less likely to be attacked by Vikings than by local rulers?

My ideas on the answer to the main question include (1) chroniclers' descriptions of Viking raids 'accuse' them of being more vicious, (2) they were pagans so that makes them the real bad guys, and (3) they were 'foreigners' i.e. let's blame the alien. However, I don't know to what extent any of these factors may be relevant.

The main (original) sources for the evidence cited here were written by monks and priests who have usually been cited by modern historians as being biased against Vikings.

However, recent research into raids on monasteries in Ireland seems to indicate that at least half the raids were not carried out by Vikings. This source quotes the following statistics:

A.T. Lucas dispelled the notion that the Vikings alone were the despoilers of monasteries. He cited the fact that on the 309 occasions when ecclesiastical sites were plundered between the years 600 and 1163, the Irish were responsible for half of the attacks and in nineteen instances the Irish and Norse combined forces.

Another source (M & H. Whittock) says that, in Ireland between 795 and 820, only 26 of 113 attacks were carried by Vikings. The authors then add

We should not expect anything different for Anglo-Saxon England. As early as the late seventh century, Aldhelm, abbot of Malmesbury (Wiltshire), had been forced to negotiate a special arrangement with the kings of Mercia and Wessex to prevent them targeting his monastery, since it was sited in a border zone between the two rival Christian Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Although it is well established that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms spent a lot of time raiding and fighting each other, much of the conflict between between kingdoms which led to the smaller ones being overrun by neighbours took place before the Vikings arrived on the scene. Thus, I'm wondering about M&H. Whittock's view that England was little different from Ireland.

Concerning the above, I have two supplementary questions to the main question:

1. Has there been a similar analysis of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles which will back up M & H. Whittock's assertion that "We should not expect anything different for Anglo-Saxon England", and has there been any statistical analysis of the Frankish chronicles?

2. The statistics refer to raids on ecclesiastical sites. Is there any indication in the chronicles / annals as to whether non-ecclesiastical sites were more or less likely to be attacked by Vikings than by local rulers?

My ideas on the answer to the main question include (1) chroniclers' descriptions of Viking raids 'accuse' them of being more vicious, (2) they were pagans so that makes them the real bad guys, and (3) they were 'foreigners' i.e. let's blame the alien. However, I don't know to what extent any of these factors may be relevant.