I think you were when you dishonestly suggested that the Reconquista was an event that happened 20 generations and 6 centuries after the Moorish conquest.
In reality, the Reconquista began when Pelagius returned around 718 only 6 years after the conquest. Most of the Reconquista took place between the first major battle 11 years after the invasion and the boxing of the Moors up in Andalusia around 1000. A second wave of Moorish invaders arrived in 1086 out of Africa and attacked the north. The next 2 centuries were spent pushing them back. By about 1260 the Reconquista was all but over, and the southern Moorish kingdoms became vassals to the Spaniards and Portuguese and fell over time.
So he had no claim on Granada.
Wrong. Roderic, the Visigoth King of all of Spain, was killed in 711 and Agila, a contender to his throne, died in exile in 714. This left Pelagius as the highest ranking nobleman, and thus legitimate heir to Spain.
I don't take you for an idiot. I expect the same. If that is the only response you can give, so be it.
Nor do I take you for an idiot. I do question your honesty in this discussion though, and your original suggestion that the Reconquista was some Spanish invention of the 1400's to get revenge on the 20x great-grandsons of the people who conquered them in 711, I find this questioning substantiated.
The historical reality of the Reconquista is far different. If anything, it was an act of rebellion by the people who were invaded only a few years later. That rebellion continued with their sons, grandsons, and great grandsons. Then a new wave of Moors flooded in during the 11th century, and the Spaniards rebelled again. As did their sons, grandsons, and great grandsons until the Moorish rulers were holed up in the tiny kingdom of Granada - the only Moorish state that even remotely resembles your false description of the entire Reconquista.
As were "portions" of Iberia before the Moorish conquest.
Not in any comparable sense. Texas (an area of land the size of Spain) had fewer inhabitants in 1820 than Spain did in 700. As with most of your analogies, the comparison simply isn't supported by history.
Which was nonetheless earlier than many of the Jewish settlers
And later than many others, though certainly later than ALL of those Jewish settlers' ancestors.
And the Palestinian population also claims descent from prior inhabitants
That they do, but in many cases they might as well be claiming descent from the Aztecs and it wouldn't be any more valid. Many of the tribes they claim decent either disappeared or actually originated from neighboring territories, particularly Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Phoenician anthropology, for example, situates its distant modern descendants in coastal Lebanon and Syria - not Israel. The other most commonly claimed tribes - the Canaanites and Philistines - disappeared completely in pre-Roman times. Others who claim to be Canaanites are actually Lebanese Phoenecians who use the older tribe's term out of a belief that the Pheonecians descended from a northern Canaanite tribe. And of course there are "palestinians" who came out of Egypt and Jordan, but claim to be descendents of various extinct pre-roman tribes as a way of establishing a false legitimacy in their land claims.
It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492. Jews were expelled. Moors were expelled. All of Iberia was "reconquered" by Christians. This was 781 years after the Moors first took southern Spain. Easily 20 generations.
Wrong. Roderic, the Visigoth King of all of Spain, was killed in 711 and Agila, a contender to his throne, died in exile in 714. This left Pelagius as the highest ranking nobleman, and thus legitimate heir to Spain. p> Legitimate by whose standards? The Goths invaded Iberia in the 5th century, which means they controlled Andalusia for less than half the time the Moors ruled it.
Nor do I take you for an idiot. I do question your honesty in this discussion though, and your original suggestion that the Reconquista was some Spanish invention of the 1400's to get revenge on the 20x great-grandsons of the people who conquered them in 711, I find this questioning substantiated.
You claimed that the Reconquista was just because "its cause was the expulsion of a foreign invader" (#130). The expulsion of the Moors came some seven centuries after the last "foreign invader" started pushing up daisies. Even with a second wave of Moorish invaders in the late 11th century you still have a 400 year history to contend with. And if 400 years does not give the Moors any claim to legitimacy, it certainly doesn't give any to the descendants of descendants of a short-ruling kings of the Visigoths and their three-century-old state.
And of course there are "palestinians" who came out of Egypt and Jordan, but claim to be descendents of various extinct pre-roman tribes as a way of establishing a false legitimacy in their land claims.
The point you're missing is that claimed residency hundreds of generations before is a very weak claim, regardless of who makes it.
Not in any comparable sense.
There is no "comparable sense." Either the land was inhabited at the time of the conquest or it wasn't. You seem to be claiming that conquerors have a right to uninhabited land.
And later than many others, though certainly later than ALL of those Jewish settlers' ancestors.
Excepting the ancestors that had married into Jewish families. And of course, the Jews themselves are not indigenous to the region, so if one could conclusive prove a Canaanite connection, the whole house of cards would tumble.