Talk:Monte Cassino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The English tends to give the name in one word, Montecassino. Is it necessary/helpful to have a separate entry that automatically redirects any user searching for "Montecassino" to "Monte Cassino"? Thanks!

Portress 00:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If I can think of a way I might hunt for anything, I make a redirect, just in case the future Lost One turns out to be me. --Wetman 00:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Montecassino now appears in the lead as an alternative name. Google Ngrams suggests the name "Monte Cassino" is much more popular than "Montecassino". Gareth Jones (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Abbot Oderius[edit]

Abbot Oderius seems to exist only on wikipedia. Is Oderius misspelt? Could someone verify this. --Ezeu 13:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to this for three weeks, I am removing Abbot Oderius from the article. --Ezeu 00:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My father, Dr. Carl Heinen,then leutnant in the "Nachrichten Abteilung" of the 14 Panzer Korps, dispatched the vehicles who evacuated these precious archives. I do not think he was the officer who gave this order. Does anyone know who was the officer who gave this order?

"By great foresight on the part of a German officer, these were all transferred to the Vatican at the beginning of the battle."

Nachrichten-Abteilung was disbanded after WWI. (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Archive evacuation by german troops 1944[edit]

My father, Carl Heinen, then "Reserve Leutnant" in the "Nachrichten Abteilung" of the XIV Panzerkorps, organised and dispatched the vehicles who evacuated these precious archives.(Official German movie theater news footage from this "action" is still to be seen in most TV documentaries about the battle(s)of Monte Cassino). According to all parties present there, there was no doubt the allied troops would not care much about the destruction of the monastery and its archives, hence the order to evacuate at least the precious documents. 60+ years after this event my father does not recall who gave this order. Does the person(s) who posted this article know? Any information is welcome.

Kind regards,


"By great foresight on the part of a German officer, these were all transferred to the Vatican at the beginning of the battle."

For more info, I can be contacted at:

Hello Paul, The identity of the German officer mentioned both in the article and in your request is given in Wikipedia's German-language version of the Monte Cassino article, which I will quote below:

"Nach dem Kriege wurde die Abtei mit Hilfe des italienischen Staates in zehn Jahren nach den ursprünglichen Bauplänen wiederaufgebaut. Pläne und Kunstschätze des Klosters waren vom deutschen Oberstleutnant Julius Schlegel in den Vatikan evakuiert worden."

Roughly translated (my German being exceedingly poor):

"After the war, the abbey was reconstructed by the Italian state in ten years, following the original blueprints. Plans and art treasures of the cloister had been evacuated by the German Lieutenant-Colonel Julius Schlegel into the Vatican."

Note though, that I am not sure if this is true. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, after all. If your father can recall Oberstleutnant Schlegel's presence at the abbey prior to the battle, it would lend at least some confirmation that the above is correct.

With kind regards, and hope this helps,

Victoria ( 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)) 
   This seems to prove the story of Schlegel. It could also be used as source for the article itself --Eeignet (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polish Flag Monte Cassino3.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Polish Flag Monte Cassino3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

article about a hill or an abbey[edit]

i'm unclear about the topic and title of this article.

is it an aritcle about a hill - monte cassino - that has an abbey on it?


is it an article about an abbey - the abbey of monte cassino - that is on a hill?

i would expect to see 2 distinct article (with, obviously, some cross linking). -- (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Various matters[edit]

I am just passing by this page, so please tell me if I am out of line here. I have a couple of suggestions. I think that an image of the ruined abbey after the battle would fit the article. Also, in the lead, I wonder if the term 'rebuilt' would be more appropriate than 'restored'.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a picture of the bombed-out ruins. They're probably not Wikipedia-appropriate, but below are a few links to show what kind of stuff is out there.,_Italien,_Monte_Cassino_0.jpg As you can see, there's still a good bit left in these pictures. So I don't know whether "restored" or "rebuilt" is better. --Jtle515 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So how was it rebuilt and by whom? Tooth Fairy? In today's dollars it would be tens if not hundreds of millions. I'm surprised that there's no mention of this, unlike for example the rebuilding of the Church of Christ the Redeemer in Moscow. --MichaelGG (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas[edit]

I believe Aquinas studied at the monastery ('Aristotle and Aquinas' by Joseph Owens in The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, pg. 43). Most important medieval philosopher, migth be worth a mention?Botta Perbus (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Change of article's name from Monte Cassino to Montecassino[edit]

I've no idea why this has been done - the obscure reference to the italian wiki is unhelpful. Throughout the English Wikipedia and in most English language books it is referred to as Monte Cassino so naming the article Montecassino is just confusing (In same way that if the article in the french Wikipedia on London was named London rather than Londres). If the name is to be changed then it should be established that the single word name is consensus and all mentions to Monte Cassino in Wikipedia changed to Montecassino (using a bot?). I think this should be reverted until a justification / consensus is established in the Talk. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is always two words in English and this is the English Wikipedia. Revert if it has not been already.--Charles (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarcophagi during the 1944 artillery barrage[edit]

In the abbey are the sarcophagi of St. Benedict and his twin sister St. Scholastica. Can anyone explain if they were kept in a safe place, so as not to be damaged during the artillery barrage? Musicwriter (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Image for after the bombing[edit]

I was wondering whether this ( image would be more illustrative of the destruction of the monastery? I think it would fall under fair usage, but cannot be certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Monte Cassino not looted by Germans[edit]

Monte Cassino was not looted by Germans in WW2. If Germans had not removed vast numbers of treasures to the Vatican for safekeeping, they would have been destroyed by the unnecessary American air raids. The statement that the rescue of these treasures was "more to the point about German looting" is both colloquial and entirely false. The authors bias or ulterior motive should be noted.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of author's bias, you call the air raids "unnecessary"... that's your POV, but it was not the POV of the military commanders who were present, had a stake, and gave the orders. (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Territorial status[edit]

Pope Francis has removed the territorial status of the abbey. The abbot now has jurisdiction only over the territory of the abbey. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Partially true. While the lands beyond that of the Abbey proper were merged into the local diocese, it remains a Territorial Abbey (see, for example, Annuario Pontificio 2015 p1026) but it covers a smaller area than before.--Dcheney (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Please STOP making the incorrect changes indicating that it is no longer a territorial abbey. One of the references for the latest group of changes (CNA story) specifically states that it remains a territorial abbey - just with a smaller territory.--Dcheney (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)