If the unsuspecting observer is an idiot and doesn't know a single thing about the Reconquista, thus rendering him susceptible to the misreading you ascribe to him, then I would say he has either lost interest in this debate or has no business following it.
The fact is, the Moors expelled from Granada at the tail end of the 15th century had far deeper roots in that land than the Visigothic claimants ever did.
Primogeniture.
It is presumptuous at best to assume that the bloodline of a 7th century king, transmitted by male descendants, continued unbesmirched for seven centuries.
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.
You're being dishonest again. Rome "withdrew" from Iberia as its power waned and that of the Vandals and Alans waxed. But if Rome had "pulled out" as you say, what rights did they have to cede to the Visigoths? And what's more, the Romans, who first came to Iberia as conquerors in 219 BC, enjoyed a shorter rule over Andalusia (Granada, at least) than the Moors.
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.
I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way. You're being dishonest again.
The fact is, the Moors in Granada had a much stronger claim to the territory than any alleged desscendant of a Visigothic placeholder king.
The ignorance of the general public is not an excuse to lie to them, which is basically what you just admitted to doing.
It is presumptuous at best to assume that the bloodline of a 7th century king, transmitted by male descendants, continued unbesmirched for seven centuries.
The Spanish succession between that point was not a direct descendence of male heirs, but rather a bloodline. When Kings fail to produce a direct male heir succession goes to the next of kin, such as a non-primogeniture sibling, a nephew, or a cousin. This happened a couple times between Pelagius and Isabella and Ferdinand, though the bloodline remained intact through several strains to both of them independently. As was often the custom of the day, royalty married distant cousins.
You're being dishonest again.
That seems to be your codeword for the fact that I introduced a historical event that inconveniences your argument.
Rome "withdrew" from Iberia as its power waned and that of the Vandals and Alans waxed. But if Rome had "pulled out" as you say, what rights did they have to cede to the Visigoths?
As I suspected you would do, you've chosen to argue artificial constructs of convenience rather than historical events. Rome still owned Acquataine when Honorius gave it to the Visigoths. It still owned Hispania as well when it allowed them to settle there, even though Iberia was being invaded by the Vandals at the time. Honorius' plan was to reward the Visigoths, who were considered Romanized compared to the other barbarians, by giving them control of spanish land in exchange for putting down the other more hostile barbarians. Once Rome gave the Visigoths a green light it pulled its own troops back.
And what's more, the Romans, who first came to Iberia as conquerors in 219 BC, enjoyed a shorter rule over Andalusia (Granada, at least) than the Moors.
How odd. You seem to have staken your entire argument for mahometan control of Spain on their ability to get holed up in a single city-state on the southern tip of Iberia.
I described the Reconquista in no such terms and only an idiot would read my description in such a way. You're being dishonest again.
Far from it. 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" (post 136)
You made that statement in response to my post, which described the moors as a foreign invader. Prior to that point no reference had been made to Granada or anything other that Iberia in its entirity.