# Napoleon's Dutch pyramid



## zlax (Dec 28, 2020)

> Built in 1804, it was easy. Ostensibly in purpose to entertain soldiers from idleness. Land and sand in sacks. I suspect that the general used the method, having picked it up during the Egyptian campaign. It took 27 days to build a pyramid 36 meters high.








> On the highest point of the Utrechtse Heuvelrug, near the Dutch village of Woudenberg, is the European pyramid.
> This 36-metre-high earthen hill was built in 1804 by Napoleon's troops under the leadership of General Auguste de Marmont as a tribute to his friend and hero - Napoleon Bonaparte (although Marmont later betrayed him).
> The general named the place Mont Marmont, but in 1806, despite his protests, Louis Bonaparte, the new king of Holland, renamed the hill the Pyramid of Austerlitz in memory of the battle of Austerlitz, in which his brother Napoleon I defeated Russia and Austria.







> Satisfied with the military power of the new army and in order to somehow occupy the bored soldiers, inspired by the pyramids of Giza, which he saw during the Egyptian campaign of Napoleon in 1798, in autumn 1804, Marmont ordered the construction of this monument using the ground and the sod.







> As might be expected, the pyramid began to collapse shortly after the construction was completed. Marmon tried to keep it in good condition, but when the locals began to destroy the pyramid by removing the stone slabs, the upset general sold it and the surrounding land to Hubert M.A.J. van Asch van Wijk, who later became mayor of the nearby town of Utrecht.
> The construction took only 27 days, during which a 36-metre high structure appeared. A 13-meter-long wooden obelisk was installed at the flat top of the pyramid. However, Marmont was too hasty in construction, as the structure did not even have a proper foundation - only earth and sand.







> The pyramid remained abandoned throughout the 20th century until it was restored in 2004. The Austerlitz Pyramid and the surrounding area are now a popular tourist and recreational site.





Source:  Насыпной характер основного тела пирамид - 2


----------



## Timeshifter (Dec 28, 2020)

It would be better for you to include your own thoughts when posting information! As interesting as this building is, I would expect to hear the thoughts of the OP. 

My question. Does it seem feasable for this to have been built, by whom, for whom and for the reasons stated in the article?


----------



## zlax (Dec 28, 2020)

Timeshifter said:


> It would be better for you to include your own thoughts when posting information! As interesting as this building is, I would expect to hear the thoughts of the OP.
> My question. Does it seem feasable for this to have been built, by whom, for whom and for the reasons stated in the article?


This site is little known. But meanwhile, of all the world's pyramids, it may be the only one with a non-fictional origin story. I think that the official story of the construction of this pyramid is a credible one. Unlike the versions of the other pyramids. And what's more, the history of this pyramid's construction may have similarities to the origins of other pyramids, which are traditionally attributed to more ancient times.

Although there are contradictions in the history of this pyramid, for example, the English wikipedia reports:


> Atop the pyramid is a stone obelisk from 1894.


The engraving shows that the obelisk was installed immediately after construction:


Among Russian-speaking and French-speaking revisionists there is an opinion that many of the Egyptian pyramids (especially in Giza, but not all) were built by Napoleon's army. In that case, the construction of this Dutch pyramid looks quite logical.

I will quote this little article, using automatic translation from French to English:


> The "return from Egypt" style
> Egyptian references have been established since the Battle of the Pyramids and the capture of Cairo in July 1798 by General Bonaparte. It should be remembered that the French became interested in Egypt very early on, as did Hubert Robert from 1760 onwards, and it is not unusual to come across Egyptian-style chimeras as early as the Directoire.
> Napoleon organised a scientific and cultural expedition to Egypt, bringing together men of the arts and sciences.
> The publication of the works of the expedition: "La Description De L' Égypte", begun in 1802 and finally published in 1826, is full of new elements, inspires many artists and an unexpected vision of these mysterious regions transforms the environment of the French through architecture and decorative arts.
> A real fashion starts in France and spreads all over Europe as far as Russia. Houses, fountains and interiors are decorated in Egyptian style. This contemporary style of the consulate is called "return from Egypt". This style lasted only a very short period (about ten years), replaced by the empire style.


https://www.proantic.com/magazine/le-style-retour-degypte/
I can also mention this organisation in this context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Dilettanti


> Avec la complicité des Loges, ils ont beaucoup falsifié l'Histoire romaine, grec, puis égyptienne, accompagnant même Napoléon dans sa Campagne...


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 28, 2020)

zlax said:


> Among Russian-speaking and French-speaking revisionists there is an opinion that many of the Egyptian pyramids (especially in Giza, but not all) were built by Napoleon's army.



No.

The Gizeh pyramid was not built using pulleys, cranes, geopolymer concrete or even acoustic levitation. There are 2.3 million blocks of granite there.

And Napoleon's vacation in Egypt is fiction.

Another noted author (M. Mathis), who is neither a flat earth believer, nor a new radical chronologist, has written about the impossible/fake details of Napoleon's biography:



> "We are told Napoleon didn't attack England more directly because he didn't like water or something, but that is such a dodge. Napoleon went all the way to Russia through the snows. He sailed all the way to Egypt. Getting across the channel would have been child's
> play next to that. If you want to read ridiculous misdirection sold as serious history, I recommend you read the Wikipedia page on Napoleon's planned invasion of England.
> 
> There we find this:
> ...


----------



## zlax (Dec 28, 2020)

sandokhan said:


> The Gizeh pyramid was not built using pulleys, cranes, geopolymer concrete or even acoustic levitation. There are 2.3 million blocks of granite there.


According to gorozhanin_iz_b@lj's version, the Egyptian tourist centres were not built by Napoleon's Army, but they laid the foundations. He claims that the construction of Egyptian antiquities continued for the next 150 years:

John Pendlebury according to this version was one of the last lead archeologists.

There is a photo of the famous excavation. The western entrance to the shrine of Amun:


And here's the familiar ancient Egyptian railway at the same Temple of Amon-Ra entrance:


And while we're on the subject of ancient Egyptian railway, let's show the ancient Egyptians rail transport too:


One of the later stages of the reconstruction of antiquity:





The steel profiled reinforcement inside the ancient parts of the statues is clearly visible in this photo:


And here you can see traces of planking on the granite stones of the pyramids:





An ancient iron armature that happened to be in the pyramid, like King Arthur's sword in the stone:


The stone corner of the famous pyramid:


Ancient granite monoliths, with crumbling granite plaster:





etc etc

There are many such examples. I recommend this collection of articles:
https://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/80010.htmlhttps://uctopuockon-pyc.livejournal.com/3404728.htmlhttps://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/80593.htmlhttps://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/86656.htmlhttps://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/83445.htmlhttps://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/87047.htmlI can recommend special attention to this part:
https://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/83036.htmlHere the author has collected ancient engravings and photographs, and uses them to show that it is likely that Napoleon's army built only a small part of the sites in Egypt, and that the main tourist attractions were built later according to their designs.


sandokhan said:


> Another noted author (M. Mathis), who is neither a flat earth believer, nor a new radical chronologist, has written about the impossible/fake details of Napoleon's biography:


I am too inclined to think that Napoleon, is a fictional character:






https://archive.org/details/napoleonmythcont00evanuoft/page/n7/mode/2up​But Napoleon's Army left a lot of traces behind. Perhaps this group of people called themselves something else 200 years ago.


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 28, 2020)

Sure.

But the Gizeh pyramid was not built by Napoleon or by the Egyptians (whether recently or in the past).


----------

