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.
Indeed, let's.
zimdog: "The "foreign invadeders" were 20th-generation descendants of the Moors who invaded."
Your #130 recognizes the Khaldun's productive life as the period in question and makes no comment. Therefore, we proceed with the understanding that we are talking about the late 14th century. If the Moors first invaded in the early 8th century (which they did), that leaves more than 600 years before the time in question. When you said that the 14th century Christian forces were fighting Moorish "invaders" you certainly didn't literally mean the 8th century Moors who invaded Iberia, did you? If so, you're not making a rational argument and we can stop right there. If not, you are suggesting that the Moors these 14th century Christian forces were fighting were somehow "invaders" even though their roots in Spain at that time dated back more than 6 centuries. Easily 20 generations.
lgclamar: Points out that the Reconquista began within a decade of the Moorish invasion.
This is an important point. We'll return to it.
zimdog: Harps endlessly about Granada in 1492.
I'll just mention that this seems to be an unnecessary editorializing thrown in by lqclamar.
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."
Your argument seems to hinge on the false idea that the Reconquista was a single "event." If so, it is an idea that you introduced and I ignored. Furthermore, the 6 centuries/20 generations continues to mark locate the historical period in question in the 14th century.
zimdog: (post 150) "It [the Reconquista] did happen then.[the late 14th century] Granada fell to Ferdinand and Isabella's forces in 1492." [The fall of Granada is widely recognized as the completion of the Christian force's "Reconquest" of Spain. I.e., the end of the Reconquista]
You seem not to know that the fall of Granada was the end of the Reconquista that you (correctly) stated had begun in the early 8th century. Either that or you're can understand how a reference to the Reconquista's end postdating Khaldun by nearly a century could imply that the Reconquista was still going on during his lifetime.
lqclamar: (post 154) "In your original post you suggested that the events in Granada in 1492 represented the entirity of the Reconquista"
Seeing how I never made that suggestion (as recourse to the #150 bears out, if that is what you are considering the "original post"), I maintain my claim that only an idiot would read my post that 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""
Did Christian rulers of 14th century Iberia set themselves against Moors who were not in Spain? No. Were Moors not "expelled kingdom by kingdom over the next several centuries" as the Christian armies pushed south? Of course they were. (It's something you claim in #150.)
So if the Moorish "invaders" in question were not outside of Iberia and not in Christian-held lands? Where were they? They were in Moorish Iberia, the south of the peninsula. When did the Moors first take power in Iberia? In the early 8th century. Where did they first take power? In the south of the Peninsula. Had Christian forces conquered the Moorish states of Iberia in the late 14th century? No, there was still a Reconquista, against the Moorish "invaders", as you claim in #130. So these "invaders", that is to say the Iberian Moors that are the target of the Reconquista, are at this time (late 14th century) cultural and biological heirs to the Moors' 600+ year history in Iberia.
...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.
Whihc of course I did, although I got the citation wrong. It should be post #125. I'll point out that post #150 makes it clear that with the fall of Granada "All of Iberia was "reconquered" by Christians." That is to say, the nearly eight century-long Reconquista was over. That this occurs nearly a century after Khaldun's death reinforces my point that the so-called Moorish "invaders" targeted in the 14th century actually had a 600+ year history in the land.
Put another way, zimdog had no clue about the dates, events, or persons he was using.
Sure sounds like I have a clue, doesn't it audience?
He slipped up and began intermixing events almost a century apart.
To say that the Reconquista ended in 1492 is does not discount the fact that the so-called Moorish "invaders", targets of the Reconquista in the 14th century, were heirs to 600+ years of Moorish rule at the time.
And this slip up was caught, explaining his pissy mood at the present.
I just don't suffer fools easily.