I maintain that the general public is not ignorant. Only someone truly unlettered in history could possibly (and honestly) give my comments the reading you gave.
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.
So primogeniture was not the basis for legitimate rule that you claimed it was in #150.
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.
What I find odd is that you've justified F y I's conquest of Granada on the following:
"Expelling invaders" (some of whom had 750+ year roots)
"Pelagius's legitimate claim" (Based on his position in the deposed Visigothic royal house)
"Primogeniture" (Which you later recanted)
"Roman rule" (Which was shorter than Moorish rule)
Will the list go on?
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.
That's not really my argument, but if it were to be, how would it be any different than your claim that F y I were justified in "reclaiming" "their" Granada from Moorish "invaders" who had lived there for centuries?
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)
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. I thought the time frame would make the geographical setting clear. Apparently I overestimated your intelligence.
Your gratuitous attempts at insult aside, the fact remains that what you wrote was intended to mislead. Your subsequent angst over me pointing that out seems to derive entirely from the fact that you did not succeed in misleading, but rather found yourself immediately challenged for your simplistic and intentional misportrayal of the Reconquista.
So primogeniture was not the basis for legitimate rule that you claimed it was in #150.
More unsophisticated word games. I suspect you understand the concept and again are being intentionally obtuse, but in the chance that you do not the law of primogeniture of kings extends succession to the oldest surviving male heir. When there is no surviving male heir, the very same law transfers succession to the next closest line. It is by no means exclusive to Spain, as the same rules generally apply to most of the other European monarchies.
What I find odd is that you've justified F y I's conquest of Granada on the following:
The only thing odd is your persistence in misrepresentation despite having been visibly embarrassed on it from the moment you began. In the tradition of the word games you've displayed to date, you persist in confusing the Reconquista as a whole with its final battle in the last and smallest of the Moorish holdings. As I have not characterized Granada independently of the Reconquista as a whole, I find it illustrative of your tendency to lie that you would suggest otherwise and thus see no need to further respond to your dishonesty.
"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.
No. It only places the writing of Khaldun, a historian of many centuries, in the 14th century. The term Reconquista itself applies to the entire period from 718 and 1492, and more specifically the wars within that period. As the majority of those wars and the majority of the recapture happened within the first half of the Reconquista, to use the term while insisting it to apply only to the final battle in the last Moorish city-state exhibits dishonesty. But that is entirely unsurprising, as dishonesty is your track record around here.