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.
Though it is far from surprising, you are being dishonest again. Granada was the smallest and last of the Moorish kingdoms to fall. Most of Spain had been retaken in the 1200s. In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista - something that an unsuspecting observer would have easily missed, hence your deceptive intent proven.
Legitimate by whose standards?
Primogeniture.
The Goths invaded Iberia in the 5th century
Actually the Visigoths (a western tribe of the goths) were granted the Roman province of Aquataine in the Pyrenees by Honorius, the Roman Emporer. Part of the deal also allowed them to settle further south in Iberia in exchange for controlling some of the nomadic tribes that had moved into the region as Rome pulled out.
So if you're going to look for a legitimate predecessor to the Visigoths, it would be the Roman Empire. Since Rome abandoned it though, the land went up for grabs and of the tribes that went grabbing the Visigoths had the strongest sanction from its previous rulers via Honorious.
The expulsion of the Moors came some seven centuries after the last "foreign invader" started pushing up daisies.
You're being dishonest again. The first expulsion of the Moors happened in Asturias only 11 years after they arrived. They were expelled kingdom by kingdom over the next several centuries. Only a tiny fragment of the Moorish invaders' offspring, holed up in the smallest and last of their kingdoms, even remotely resembles your original description for the entire Reconquista.
zimdog: "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded."
lgclamar: Points out that the Reconquista began within a decade of the Moorish invasion.
zimdog: Harps endlessly about Granada in 1492.
lcqlamar: (post 145) "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."
zimdog: (post 150) "It did happen then. Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492."
lqclamar: (post 154) "In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista"
zimdog: (post 156) "I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way."
lgclamar: (post 159) "Your words, made in reference to the Moors as a whole with absolutely no indicator that it referred to but a single tiny province, read "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded""
zimdog: (post 164) "Except that the historical period in question was established in #122: "In fact Khaldu[n] was writing as Christian Spaniards were engaged in a bloody Reconquista that they felt was a completely Just War by Augustinian standards." That puts us in the late 14th century, meaning that the Moorish enemies of the Reconquista at that time had been in Iberia for more than 6 centuries."
...at which point I made simple note of the fact that the date event zimdog had been specifically harping on (Granada 1492 - see e.g. post 150 above) was a century after Khaldun, who he now purports to have established the date for his earlier Reconquista reference. Put another way, zimdog had no clue about the dates, events, or persons he was using. He slipped up and began intermixing events almost a century apart. And this slip up was caught, explaining his pissy mood at the present.