Did Hemorrhoids win the Battle of Waterloo?
The battle of Waterloo was a very close run thing indeed.
Napoleon was not in very good health, among his list of ailments was an awful case of Hemorrhoids, some say he could not ride at Waterloo, maybe the long march north had aggravated things to the limit.
His absence from the battle field for an hour or so is when things really stated going wrong, and Hemorrhoids may be the culprit, is it possible the English claim ‘Hemorroids won the Battle of Waterloo’ may be true?
Similar Posts:
- Is passing blood clots outside of stool a symptom of hemorrhoids, if that person goes untreated for years?
- Hemorrhoids?
- An Organic Hemorrhoids Treatment May Relieve Even The Extreme Hemorrhoids
- Recovery From Hemorrhoids Is Possible
- TRAVELLING TO PARIS, FRANCE AS Effectively AS PARIS EURODISNEY COULD NOT BE LESS DIFFICULT IF YOU USE EUROSTAR TRAINS
February 14th, 2010 at 7:02 am
There is certainly an argument for what you’re saying, however even if Napoleon had been on the field, there is little he could have done to repel the superior force of Blücher’s Prussian army when they arrived on the field from the east and retook the village of Plancenoit. His presence on the field however could have prevented Marshall Ney’s ill-conceived and ill-fated calvalry charge which most agree was the event which led to the eventual rout of the French.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:02 am
No..it was the Prussians.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:02 am
It’s very possible they played a part in the battle…after all Who would want to ride a horse in that condition? I was referring to Napoleon and not the horse!