Of course i didn't imply that there weren't other conquest before the almoravid movenemnt. I was just giving some context on the debate of the two extreme: there were no black among the so called moor and they were all black.The kingdom of the Mauretania, from where the Mauri were, felt in the Roman hands in 44 AD. So since Roman times the Mauri were associated with that region that today belongs to Morocco and west Algeria.
As for Moors in Europe, you references to the movements of the Almoravid and the somewhat later Almohads is important, since at least the first had units with black warriors. But there were Moors in Europe since 711 AD, the first wave of Muslim armies that invaded the Iberian Peninsula was mostly made by Berbers.
Just a side note for the last paragraph: some centuries after this, the Portuguese, while exploring the west coast of Africa, established the “skin colour frontier”, if you allow me the expression, around the Senegal River. South of it there were the lands of the blacks; north of it there were mostly Berbers. This can be seen in the “Crónica do Descobrimento e da Conquista da Guiné”, by Zurara.
As for the location of the moors it's clearly said that they were moving from Senegal to Morocco. But you are right during the antiquity they were clearly in the northern cost, that's why I said north west. And yes the Sahara push most population way south. The Arab invasion is also a reason while some of them became islamized and were the first to conquest the Iberia peninsula, the rest go pretty far in the south.
For the Portugal thing I don't really get if it's a critics to my paragraph or you agree. I think that you seems to corroborate what I say : like black population were pushed to the south by the berber population due the climate change. The berber are more adapted in their style of life to the desert than the sub Saharan.