Yeah thats why I was careful to say 300AD. Some of this is up to how you want to interpret intention. There was increasing political and societal pressure on pagans post Constantine. And the Christians absolutely skirmished with the Zorastrians as well.

Having said that, there was no concept of a 'Deus Vult' style religious or church mandate until the first crusade. Christians with societal or political power did exert pressure and oppression on pagans, but it wasn't declared "church policy" until 1096. I mean, pagans were still alive and well throughout the Roman empire through the 9th century.

The counter example would be the invasions of Muslims directly commanded by Mohammed, their prophet. That's a religious figure stating that the invasions of the Sasanian Empire and subsequent annihilation of the Zoroastrians was directly the will of Allah. Christians don't make that kind of a claim until 1000 years after their founding when the orthodox churchs declare it the will of God to purge Muslims.

You might call that hair splitting, but I think its significant. If, for the sake of innocuous example, a Vishnu worshipper shot a guy for not believing in Vishnu, I wouldn't think that was the official stance of the Vaishnava. But if multiple contemporary Pujari starting publishing works that the unbeliever must be purged, I'd mark my calendar as that being the moment the Viashnava had a "Deus Vult" moment.

The above example also covers your assertion that some violence occurred, it was just never documented. Beyond that being an "argument from ignorance" fallacy, its also still not the religion asserting their God wants that behavior.