Well, I didn't mean he didn't exist. Obviusly the historicity of Rodrigo Díaz probably can't be denyed, both muslim and christian documents reffers to him (interestingly, muslim sources reffer to him in very negative terms though they acknowledge his martial skills but, wasn't El Cid the tolerant knight and
caudillo beloved by christians and muslims?). The historicty of Mío Cid Ruy Díaz,
el de Vivar Campeador is more questionable.The probelm is, due to the lack of seizable historical data to reconstruct his life and the allure of legend the figure reached, we have one of those cases where myth and and history have been intermixed dangerously. Plus, you have to take into account that medieval chronicles, as the literature, didn't lose a chance to use famous figures with moralizing goals. For that reason El Cid is always represented as the model of knight who follows the chivalry code under any circumstances, the best of lords, the best of vassals and the best of warriors, his "problems" with Alfonso VI are reduced to moral/emotional causes, like the envy of the king and other castilian nobles. It's said that he descended from one of the original Judges of Castille linking him with the fundational myth of Castile, or the marriages of his daughter with the lineages of Aragon and Navarra, linking him with the kings of Hispania. There is both a moralizing and a political agenda behind all that. Even the allegedly more serious source about his life, the
Historia Roderici or
Gesta Roderici moves dangerously in the line between the chronicle and the hagiography (like many other medieval chronicles, by the way, their concept of History wasn't our concept of History) and even it has been suggested that it could be an attempt made by the aragonese monarchy to appropriate the symbolical value of El Cid. Finally, among the modern historians interested in El Cid, probably the most influent was Menéndez Pidal. The problem with Pidal was that he wanted to believe in the legendary hagiography of El Cid because, as a traditionalist, he liked the political implications of the mythical Rodrigo Díaz. Thus, the least we can say is that El Cid is, in historical terms, a problematic figure.
Of course, you can muse about him, but taking into account two things:
1. We should be critic about most of we think we know about him and
2.He was an human being, not an virtuous and unbeatable knight, so he had human motivations and flaws.
We can accept that his dinasty could have established a durable rule over Valencia. The "history" says that the Almarivids took the city after the Cid's death, so they wasn't so toasted. It makes sense if we accept that he was that unbeatable warrior. If not, what happened to the mighty of his men once he was death? But well, let's asume that another great leader tooks his place, perhaps his son Diego if he doesn't fall, as the history-legend says, fighting for Castille. As much, the new dinasty can aspire to survive as taifa lords of Valencia. With her riches, Valencia can't take over the rest of the peninsula. With its riches, the muslim rulers of Valencia had problems to survive at the time the Cid started to serve the king of Zaragoza. They needed an alliance with Barcelona and latter with the Almoravids and it wasn't enough. You have to think that 11th century Iberia, as much of Europe, is a world of warlords (an over-symplification, I know) and clientelar relations. A world where not only militar power but also the ability to make compromises was essential to survive and also a world where alliances were "dynamic". Castille and Leon, with all their might (in comparative terms) couldn't have took over souther Spain, that's the reason why they compromised with the taifas. Even less could a mercenary who had jus took over Valencia, if we accept the history, with the valuable support of the taifa of Zaragoza. Of someone would have tried to outright take over the others, everyone else would have teamed up against him. In short, it would be necessary a generations long policy of dynastic and non-dynastic alliances, luck and militar success to have a dominant Valencia, which by the way is exactly the history of the successful kingdoms of Iberia.
Cheers.[/QUO
Who said he was perfect, I know that hes a Human being, but he already had Allainces, with Powerful Iberian Kingdoms, such as Aragorn, and Navarre, Also Yes it willl be extremly challenging for the CID and he may not have been that tolerant but if that's the case why did Moors rally to his banners why did the Emir of Zaragoza trust him so much that they became good friends, surely you don't think he conquered Valencia with a bunch of Spaniards because I would be downright impossible, also in His capture of Valencia a civil war was going on and he used it to his advantage and took over, the city, For what you say that Moors hated him, only the Berbers, most likely because he crushed their army, and reppeled Yusuf before dying, so Most likely they hate hm for temporarily halting the great Almoharavid advance, and I also do not completely trust Spanish sources because many would realize that most sources in Spain will be a little biast to their national Hero

. So when I write the TL i shall write it from a completely Objective view

, using both Muslim and christian sources I will put it together, Also the Cid will not take that much land, However due to his daughters royal marraige with Barcelona, he can enter into a personal union with Barcelona, and I am planning for his son to marry a princess of either Navarre, Aragorn, or Portugal, which do you think would prove more useful......