Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name origin[edit]

What's the origin of the name? Seems a surprising omission from this article. (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name comes from the fact that they have been historically carrying rifles or carbines. Carbine is "carabina" in Italian. Ref: Bibiki (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but like much info found on the 'net, that's completely wrong. The weapon is named after the soldier, not the other way round. It's from the Old French carabin, a soldier armed with a musket, which in turn derives from escarrabin (a gravedigger) which comes from scarabee, a dung beetle. Look it up in a book! Don't trust the 'net! (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, which book should we look it up in then? Bibiki (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually what you say can be found in many places on the web: A discussion seems to be in order about whether their name was given to the carabinieri before or after the semantic shift (from soldier to the weapon they carried) occured in the Italian language. Bibiki (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My problem is that I was taught that the name Carabineri were "coal carriers" at one time, thus the insignia. I cannot find attribution, however. Does anybody else think this?

Perhaps you are thinking of Carbonari? It’s easy to confuse the words. Ian Spackman (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carabinieri Resistance Record[edit]

Hi all. I am writing this because I believe that besides the indeed valiant resistance record of the Carabinieri after 1943, the fact that they (as well as practically all Italians - in uniform or not), for more than 20 years, and especially during the first WWII years, did not resist Mussolini or the fascists at all, but only did so when it was obvious that Italy would lose the war, should be mentioned in a clear way. In my opinion, currently, the article, is presenting an image that is unbalanced: 20+ years of collaboration with fascism and Mussolini are practically swept over by praise for their resistance that only came when the war was practically lost. Let me know what you guys think. Are there any non-Italian editors around? Bibiki (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an organ of the state they could not as an organisation resist the legitimate government that would be treason --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To single the Carabinieri out for failing to resist Mussolini is highly unfair - nobody resisted Mussolini: neither Esercito, Aeronautica, Marina, Polizia, Catholic Church, the King, the Courts,... also: the Carabinieri took an oath on the King and as long as he supported Mussolini, every Carabinieri resisting Mussolini would have committed high treason. In my view your insistence to add this is like a demand to add to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt article a line saying, that Roosevelt is not known to have played with a Wii during his time in office. Which is actually a totally true statement, but I think you can see my point.
If you want to be constructive then find sources and write a paragraph about the Carabinieris darkest hour - their WWI service. Under the orders of total idiot Luigi Cadorna the Carabinieri arrested over 356,000 soldiers, deserters and officers and handed them over to Cadornas (and later Diaz's) military tribunals, who duly executed at least 750 (plus about 250 more through summary decimation) and handed out a further 4000 death sentences (fate of the accused unknown) (plus hundreds (if not thousands) of unaccounted summary executions by Italian generals for minor offenses) this article from Liberazione is a good start for your work on that --noclador (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Noclador and Jim, you both know full well that this discussion is not about critisizing the Carabinieri or deciding whether they did well or bad. It is not about justifying their actions or not. This is not what wikipedia does AFAIK. Here is the point: is what I am talking about here a fact or not? Did the Carabinieri (and we talk specifically about Carabinieri bacause the article is about the Carabinieri) resist the fascists and Mussolini even once in their 20+ years of history together? Let's state the facts and leave value judgements to the readers. Your argument about the Wii is pathetic by the way, as Wii is completely out of context while the Carabinieri pre-1943 resistance (or rather happy collaboration) record is obviously in context. Regarding their WWI record, obviously if someone could add this info (you?) that would be great. Bibiki (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First prove that there was a resistance movement before 1943 from which the Carabinieri abstained, then you may add that they did abstain. As long as there is no proof, that there was a widespread resistance in i.e. the Army or Police before 1943 - the Wii argument applies; if it didn't exist you can't be chided for not having been part of it! --noclador (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point Noclador (obviously), is exactly that: that there was not a resistance movement. Your requirements for making this an admissible fact are artificial. Why do we need to have a established resistance movement before we state the fact that Carabinieri did not resist the fascists and Mussolini before 1943? Since a point is already being made in the article about how some of the Carabinieri resisted and fought against the fascists after 1943, by the same token one can state that they did not resist the fascists and Mussolini for the 20+ years before that. The only logical requirement is that the fascists, Mussolini and the Carabinieri all existed throughout this period - and they did. To entertain your wii analogy a bit further, could the wii have existed during WWII? You would have to first establish that the IC existed at this time and then bring in the rest of the technologies. Funniest thing is, this is not even the best way to show how crooked your analogy is. Bibiki (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, it is a waste of time to discuss with you as you are hell-bent to debase the Carabinieri and not interested in constructive work at all (my offer to you to work on the Carabinieri WWI history was rejected by you) so: last points: a) you add you will be blocked b) both statement you want to add are ridiculous c) I have better things to do. --noclador (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. Is this attitude Carabinieri style or Alpino? Bibiki (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carabinieri Uniform, Colors and Insignia controversy[edit]

Also, I think that mention should be made to the fact that the Carabinieri are one of the few armed forces or corps (maybe the only?) that have participated in WWII on the side of the Axis forces and have not significantly changed their appearance, uniform, marks, colors or insignia. I think that this deserves a mention because of the offense it causes to people of countries like Greece, ex-Yugoslavia countries as well as Ethiopia who were occupied by Italians, among them Carabinieri that looked practically the same. Please read here: Cheers! Bibiki (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fotios is a blog - that is one persons personal opinion. It is fun to read this blog, but irrelevant to encyclopedic work (please read Wikipedia:No original research). --noclador (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the abundant high-quality references and the photografic evidence. This is not original research. It is a factual observation. Is the following original research or well-known historical fact: "the Carabinieri were part of the Italian forces of occupation in Greece, Ethiopia and Yugoslavia. Whether acting alone or collaborating with the Nazis they have killed many in these countries before and during WWII." Where's the original research here? Bibiki (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
on a side note: Fotios is a bit uninformed (like Afrol and the Ethiopian Ambassador to Italy) - this article is a disaster! the Südtiroler Schützenbund, which invited the ambassador is by no means "a cultural association of Italy's German-speaking minority" but a Neo-Nazi organization, which disguises its activities with a touch of cultural heritage... --noclador (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this the best you could find? Can you see the Ethiopians hanging? Why don't you tell us about them and the rest 650,000 that Italian troops have killed while there? By the way, one of the most well known massacres of Ethiopians was performed by Carabinieri. Ref here: Bibiki (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I saw the image - but I also saw the text beneath it and that text is a load of bs: "The Ethiopian elite was systematically exterminated by the Alpini" - pff,... Italy employed 500,000 troops in the war; and only one Alpini Division (ca. 17,000 men) were part of this huge Army - so the Alpini were just 3,4% of all forces and! the division was only formed December 31st 1935 - 3 months after the war had started!... The Schützen (as the Neo-nazis abbreviate their name) distort history (on a scale unimaginable) and for the Ethiopian ambassador and this homepage to fall for their distortion and lies, is as if we would use Mussolini speeches as sources for wiki-articles. What in Ethiopia happened amounts to genocide, but it was mostly the esercito and the CCNN Divisions that raged in Ethiopia - if you can produce more and clearer proof that the Carabinieri committed massacres in Ethiopia you can add that info with the appropriate sources of course. --noclador (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some high-quality references for you Noclador: Bibiki (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediation request[edit]

Hello -- a while back a Medcab request was lodged for the article, and I've decided to pick up the request. This is somewhat late, but hopefully I can still help in the case. As I understand it there are two controversies at hand here. Firstly, there is the issue of the Carabinieri's pre-1943 cooperation with the fascist government, and whether this -- as a state authority -- is worth exploring in the article in detail.

Secondly, there is the issue of the Carabinieri's uniform. Sufficient evidence is there to say that the uniform has not been changed notably since the collapse of the Axis, but whether this implies what has been stated by Bibiki is a different case, and one which seems to rest on subjective evaluation rather than objective confirmation of there being a controversy to that effect. It seems a better starting point to me to establish the atrocities which the Carabinieri are supposed to have committed reliably, and then to find reliable sources which show that the lack of change in uniform and colours has caused controversy.

I hope that this is an adequate summary of the issues which are at play.

So, I'd like the parties involved to outline their positions, citing sources where necessary, below. As a matter of course I'd like to ask that these be independent -- don't comment on or edit another party's outline. Thanks. -- QUANTUM ZENO 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you very much for offering to help. Let me first try to further elucidate what the two issues at hand are.
First, there is the issue of whether, in an article that praises part of the Carabinieri for having participated in the post-1943 resistance movement, it should also be noted that the Carabinieri had collaborated with the Mussolini regime for the 20 years before that. Refs regarding this (including carabinieri attrocities) are here:
Based on these historical facts, my article edit that noclador has reverted (and tagged as "vandalism") reads: "During the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (1922-1943) the Carabinieri collaborated with the regime". My opinion is that based on the activities that the Carabinieri undertook during the Mussolini regime era (as clearly demonstrated by refs above), including the fact that they were entrusted by Mussolini himself with the task of suppressing any opposition to the regime (ref: it is fair to say that the Carabinieri did indeed collaborate with the regime before 1943.
Second, there is the issue of whether it is fair to say that "the Carabinieri have not significantly changed their appearance (uniform, insignia, etc.) since WWII, when they fought on the side of the Axis powers and were part of the occupation forces in places like Ethiopia, ex-Yugoslavia and Greece." This is exactly what I wrote and Noclador reverted it, tagging it as "vandalism". In my opinion this is a factual statement based on trustworthy Internet resources (including the Carabinieri's own official web site) and abundant photographic evidence. References follow:
Regarding controversy that the Carabinieri's attire and appearance has caused/generated, here a couple of blog reactions with photographic evidence and further references:
Bibiki (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mussolini's governement was a legitimate one, and all Corps of any National Army, including the Carabinieri in Italy 1923 to 1943, are legally bound to "collaborates" with their legitimate government. That fact can by no means be used to criticize the Carabinieri or tarnish their reputation. The links that Bibiki has posted as evidence of alleged atrocities perpetrated by the Carabinieri actually prove nothing similar: the only (weak) link to a possible atrocity is the execution of Abuna Petros, and it is widely debated if the firing squad was made of Carabinieri or soldiers of other Corps. Anyway, Abuna Petros was tried and sentenced to death by a tribunal (possibly and probably unfair), and the execution of the Coptic Bishop was a horrible act, but it must be blamed on the tribunal, not on the firing squad, be it made of Carabinieri or not. All other links fail to prove any responsibility of the Carabinieri in any atrocity. Quite the contrary: in the link related to the most reliable of the sources (Haile Selassie's War), it is clearly stated that the Carabinieri "tried where possible to control if not to stop the Blackshirts" in their retaliation against the Ethiopian people after the assassination attempt against Graziani. Unlike Bibiki wrote, the Carabinieri were not entrusted by Mussolini with the task of suppressing any opposition. The link that Bibiki cites as evidence, taken from Oxford's Illustrated History of Italy using the lame trik of a joint search "carabinieri+collaboration+mussolini" failed to find any such relation. It is widely known that Mussolini never trusted the Royal Carabinieri, which were totally devoted to the king and very difficult to manipulate. For that reason Mussolini created the Blackshirts which, in his intention, were a kind of a copy of the Carabinieri without their history, training, and integrity.

About the uniform issue, I don't see where the problem lies. The Carabineri still use in certain occasion their historical Full Dress Uniform (Grande Uniforme Speciale). It has slightly changed from 1814, it has been used for almost 2 centuries, including 20 years when Mussolini was Prime Minister. So what? Why should they change it? That uniform cannot be, in any way, linked to Mussolini or Facisme: it's a lot older, and wearing that uniform the Carabinieri have contributed in making Italy, participating to all Risorgimento wars. And now they should change it because some blogger does not like it? As for the links referenced by Bibiki...please! Can blogs called "ridicolousitaly" be considered as reliable sources? Is it Wikipedia-level material? In the linked blogs, to ridicule and criticise the Carabinieri the bloggers use pictures of two Carabinieri awarded the Gold Medal of Military Valor ( Vice Brigadiere Salvo D'Acquisto ( and Lieutenant Alfredo Sandulli, executed by the Germans while fighting with the "Acqui" Division in Kefalonia. That says a lot of the moral value of the bloggers. ChipHazard (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just three quotes from our Italian friend's input just above tells anyone of his "moral values:"
  • "the only (weak) link to a possible atrocity is the execution of Abuna Petros." Excuse me sir but what about the link where the Carabinieri kill scores of Ethiopians? Yeah, that one where they "fire into crowds of beggars and poor indiscriminately". Look a little better my friend - yes you can.
  • "Mussolini's government was a legitimate one." So was Hitler's!
  • "...the (Carabinieri) uniform...has been used for almost 2 centuries, including 20 years when Mussolini was Prime Minister. So what? Why should they change it?" Uuuuuum, for the same reason the German military had to change theirs? I mean didn't the Carabinieri and other Italian corps fight (even with distinction) against the allies defending the principles of Nazism, Fascism and racism and killing thousands in the name of those principles? In my opinion anyone with a sense of pride and a rudimentary respect for human rights would do that right away. --Lonwolve (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lack of info about size of the Arma[edit]

OK, aside the WW2 discussion, it would be nice to have somewhere in the page the information of the size (servicemen strenght) of the Carabinieri, or a least a reasonable estimate, as other military forces pages on Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Víctor.Reply[reply]

In 2006 the Arma dei Carabinieri counted a total of 112,226 people from: xino70 14:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Move war[edit]

When you've quite finished... The primary means of determining an article title is the most common name in English-language sources. This does not mean the most common name in the English language. As the guideline makes clear in the examples, the name of the statue in English might be "Aphrodite of Milos", but the most common name in English-language sources is "Venus de Milo".

In this case, a simple Google search returns 0 non-WP links for "Corps of Carabiners", 2,940 for "Corps of Carabineers" and 684,000 for "carabinieri". Unless anyone can provide some particularly compelling reason to the contrary, it's clear that "carabinieri" is the most common title. No English speaker would ever refer to them as anything else. Does anyone wish to offer any comments? ninety:one 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official website of Carabinieri in the English version page uses the word "Carabinieri". User:Lucifero4

Whose idea was it to move the article to "Corps of Carabineers"? Corps of Carabineers is a grave naming error: a) the name Carabinieri is never translated in English b) the Carabinieri are an Arma (Army) NOT a Corps c) Carabinieri or Arma dei Carabinieri are the only 2 correct names for this article; but as no English speaker uses Arma dei Carabinieri the article MUST be left at Carabinieri. EOD. noclador (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corps or Arm but not Army![edit]

In English language is Corps of Carabineers as properly and correctly referred. the word ‘Corps’ stands for "Corpo d'Armata" (a little bit smaller of an Army) and its led by a Lieutenant General (OF-8) -> exactly as the Italian Carabineers, by a generale di corpo d'armata, are!!! In Italian language you can use "Corpo" or "Arma" but the command chain structure are just the same, in English you can just use ‘Corps’ even if the Carabinieri were splitted by the Army and now are an autonomous Armed force. An example with the same command structure: The Corpo della Guardia di Finanza. --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are mistaken here: the Carabinieri were until their elevation to Forza Armata in 2000 both: a Corps of the Italian Army and also an Arma, in the sense of Arma di Cavalleria or Arma di Fanteria. Today they are an Arma (in both senses) and the term Corpo is not anymore used to refer to the Carabinieri. Also the Carabinieri are led by a Generale di Corpo d'Armata con incarichi speciali, which is a 4 star rank (albeit with the 4th star outlined in red and the general in question still a subaltern to a full general). This elevation of the Comandante Generale came about with the elevation of the Arma in 2000 (also since then Carabinieri Generals command the Arma, until 2000 the commanding officers were always Generali di corpo d'armata from the Esercito!). Therefore to be correct we need to refer to the Carabinieri today as an Army and not as a Corps! noclador (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(confl.) Don't think so, I'm sorry. Arm of Carabineers is also correct e.g. -> arm of artillery or arm of cavalry even if this terms are in old English and now quite unused. Moreover the word ‘arm’ may cause some misunderstandings, that's why you can also find corps of artillery and corps of cavalry. Anyway even if the Italian Carabinieri are a "barely new" Armed force, you can call them ‘Corps’ or ‘Arm’ but definitely not Army! ...About the 4 star rank, once again look to the "Corpo della Guardia di Finanza". Ciao! --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please be more specific about what you mean with "About the 4 star rank, once again look to the "Corpo della Guardia di Finanza"?? Because actually all Commanding officers of the various branches of the Italian Military have the same rank: namely Generale di Corpo d'Armata con incarichi speciali for Army, Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza, generale di squadra aerea con incarichi speciali for the airforce and ammiraglio di squadra con incarichi speciali for the navy - which is always an OF-8 rank but with four stars/lines with one of them in a red border. The only full 4 star general in Italy (OF-9 rank) is the head of the Stato Maggiore di Difesa. noclador (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm italian, and maybe I can help you. The Italian word Carabinieri is referred to persons (is the plural of the word Carabiniere). The armed force is called "Arma dei Carabinieri". Why the article begin with:"The Carabinieri (formally Arma dei carabinieri"? It's still the official name of the Carabinieri. The word "arma" is not the italian for "army", which is translated as "armata" (a bit old-fashioned but still used in the grade "Generale di Corpo d'Armata") or as "esercito". The word "arma" actually means "weapon", but is used, in this case, as an old-fashioned version of "forza armata" ("armed force"). The best version should be "Arm of Carabineers" because the Carabinieri are not members of the Italian Army (so the word Corp is wrong) nor the Arma dei Carabinieri is an army (is parallel to the Army) itself. The Guardia di Finanza is another military police corp which is not an armed force, but is part of the italian army (Esercito Italiano). The Guardia di Finanza's objective is to monitor finance and corporates, while the Arma dei Carabinieri is focused on crime and order. LAUD (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After another edit from a user, the discussion must be reopened. I agree with (talk), Arm or Corp but NOT "army". Shall we leave only "Carabinieri" withhout any other word before it? --Allions (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carabinieri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]