Why did Spain take so long to kick out the Muslims?
Siesta
>>1245740
It really didn't if you don't count Granada which is a wasteland, the only desert in Europe.
There was no urge to do so
Mañana
Tacqueria
>>1245740
until the 1000s the muslims in spain had their shit together. the cordoba caliphate was a unified and centralized state with a huge army and kept the northern rump kingdoms under wraps. Then the calipate in the early 1000s, when the berbers, whom the previous two viziers (who controled the caliph as a puppet) imported for from north africa to overwhelm the spaniards, chimped out after the viziers' deaths (because of their historical mistreatment by arabs in spain and north africa) and they destroyed cordoba, whose destruction I think was equivalent to the mongol's destruction of baghdad in the 1200s.
>>1245740
>Why would the Spanish want to kick themselves out?
No really, don't fall for the Spanish historical revisionist meme that Muslims in Spanish history are a different people than current Spaniards.
Truth is the Muslims ceased to exist as a single consistently unified polity. Every time the Muslims fractured into Taifas christian kingdoms would use the opportunity to conquer more land. I wasn't even as religiously motivated as people make it out to be, the Christians would ally with various Taifas to grab land from another one.
>>1245740
Same reason there is no Celts in England, the poles and balts were Christianized east Europe is a shithole
balkanization
>>1245740
There was no Spain as we know it.
>>1245740
-There wasn't a Spain
-There were a bunch of kingdoms fighting between them more than against the arabs/moors
-For the last 400 years, taifas kingdoms paid "parias" to the christian kingdoms, those were sum of money paid to not to be attacked.
-Again, civil war as usual.
>>1246671
>chatting shit
>>1246683
Historical revisionism says the opposite, mate.
>Every time the Muslims fractured into Taifas christian kingdoms would use the opportunity to conquer more land.
During the first taifas, the only signicative advance was Toledo, and for a little while Toledo. And this was actually the period of most christian vs christian and muslim vs muslim infighting. Far more clay was grabbed during the Caliphate.
During the second taifas, no clay was grabbed because they were immeditely cucked by the Almohads. And the big grabbing of clay happened then.
The best way to picture it would be slow christian progression during the Caliphate (and mostly by Asturias-Leon), and minor grabbing of clay, lots of infighting during the Taifas and "normal" relations between christian and muslim kingdoms.
Only when the spanish muslims kingdoms got cucked by the Almoravids and the Almohads, that were both in full Jihad mode, there was a clear common christian sort of "Bring it!!! We Crusade now!!" front against them. Mostly failed and little advance against the Almoravids, but very succesful and huge clay grabbing against the Almohads, pretty much ending the Reconquista with the Great Christian Cucking of Jihadi Ahmed in 1212.
>>1250575
^*and for a little while Valencia.
>>1250575
>chatting shit
what do you mean by this I don't think i said anything wrong
>>1249670
>-For the last 400 years, taifas kingdoms paid "parias" to the christian kingdoms, those were sum of money paid to not to be attacked.
This is very important and as far as I know muslims were doing it even before what you said. They also hired the christians as mercenaries to fight in their wars between taifas.
