• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s at least closer to accurate. But a 25 year siege would’ve starved 99% of the people there to death, maybe ~23-24 years ago. Unless you can think of a way to feed the whole population with that tiny bit of land for a couple decades.

    • Andrzej
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The siege of Ceuta lasted for more than thirty years.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve never heard of that historic event (or the city itself, for that matter), so I looked it up:

        • Ceuta is a city on the north coast of Africa across the strait from Gibraltar. It’s currently an autonomous city owned by Spain (and Morocco is apparently still pissed off about that).

        • The siege @Andrzej is apparently referring to happened from 1694 to 1727, with a brief interruption in 1720-1721 when defenders’ reinforcements showed up, forced the attackers to retreat to Tétouan, tried to capture that city for a few months, and then gave up and left again.

        • Apparently, the reason it lasted so long without succeeding is that Ceuta was getting resupplied by sea. In other words, the lack of accompanying naval blockade made it kind of a shitty siege.

        • Andrzej
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was a siege though, just as the siege of Gaza is a siege