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.
No. It states that Khaldun's scholarship was carried out contemporaneously with a Christian Reconquista in Iberia, which is what any normal reader of the sentence would infer. I see you've loosed yourself from the tethers of the English language. I cannot reasonably debate with such a relativist who bends not just the facts but the language itself to fit his needs. Good day.