For Bulgarian history, 1877-1878 is one of the key periods – the Russo-Turkish War, the Liberation, the Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin changed the political map of the Balkans.
But how are these events studied by children in Turkey?
The answer is interesting because in the Turkish educational system they are placed primarily in the history of the Ottoman Empire, and not as a separate history of Bulgaria.
In the current history curriculum for 11th grade, the period 1789-1908 is included in the topic of the Ottoman Empire in the process of transformation. Among the political and military events studied, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, known in Turkey as the “93 Harbi“ – “93rd War“, is explicitly mentioned.
Students also study the consequences of the war, including migrations from the Balkans and the Caucasus to Anatolia.
93rd War – primarily an Ottoman tragedy
In the Turkish educational narrative, the war of 1877-1878 is presented as a severe military conflict for the Ottoman Empire.
The emphasis is on the military events, territorial losses, the Russian offensive and the consequences for the Ottoman state and population.
This is an important difference in perspective.
In the Bulgarian national historical memory, the war is primarily associated with the Liberation from Ottoman rule.
In the Turkish historical narrative, the same conflict is part of the long-term process of the Ottoman Empire's retreat and loss of territories in the Balkans.
In the current Turkish curriculum, students must consider precisely the consequences of these events on the Ottoman state and society. Among them are the migrations to Anatolia after the war.
The Treaty of San Stefano - a great Bulgaria
Here Bulgaria is clearly present.
In Turkish educational materials, the Treaty of San Stefano of March 3, 1878 is presented as the result of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the war with Russia.
One of the central points is the creation of a great Bulgarian principality.
The students are introduced to the fact that according to the Treaty of San Stefano, a great Bulgaria was created, while Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained independence. The territorial concessions of the Ottoman Empire to Russia are also examined.
Here it is important to understand not only what is being taught, but also from whose point of view.
For Bulgarian national education, San Stefano is a symbol of the restoration of Bulgarian statehood.
For the Turkish educational narrative, the Treaty of San Stefano is, above all, a document that shows the scale of the Ottoman military defeat and the enormous territorial losses.
Why did San Stefano not remain in force?
The next key moment is the Berlin Congress.
The Turkish educational materials explain that the European great powers did not accept the Treaty of San Stefano in its current form and a new settlement of the issue was reached in Berlin.
In the history textbook for the 11th grade It is stated that under pressure from the European powers, a conference was convened in Berlin to revise the Treaty of San Stefano.
The Ottoman Empire, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and Italy participated in it.
Here again, for Turkish students, the main issue is the fate of the Ottoman Empire.
Bulgaria is divided into three parts
This is one of the most important moments in the Turkish educational narrative.
The Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878 changed the territorial decisions of San Stefano.
According to Turkish educational materials, Bulgaria, as defined in the Treaty of San Stefano, was divided into three main parts:
-
Bulgarian Principality, directly dependent from the Ottoman Empire;
-
an autonomous region south of the Balkan Mountains, politically and militarily linked to the Ottoman Empire;
-
Macedonia – returned to Ottoman rule on condition of carrying out reforms.
This division is presented as one of the key changes made by the Treaty of Berlin compared to the Treaty of San Stefano.
For the Bulgarian student, this is usually remembered as the dismemberment of San Stefano Bulgaria.
For the Turkish textbook, the emphasis is different: the European powers limited Russian gains and changed the conditions imposed on the Ottoman Empire.
Russia – the main opponent in the story
This is another significant feature.
In the Turkish version of events, Russia is the main military opponent of the Ottoman Empire.
This does not mean that the Bulgarians are not present in the story. On the contrary - the Bulgarian question is part of the crisis of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.
But the events are viewed within the broader framework of the Russo-Ottoman rivalry, European politics, and the collapse of Ottoman influence in the Balkans.
In the current curriculum, students must analyze the political, military, and administrative events of the period and their impact on the Ottoman state and society.
And what do they learn about the Bulgarians?
An important clarification must be made here.
It is not correct to claim that Turkish children simply learn an “anti-Bulgarian version“ of history.
The modern Turkish program places a much broader emphasis on the history of the Ottoman Empire, nationalism, Balkan movements, wars and migrations.
In it, the 93rd war is also associated with the mass migration of the population to Anatolia.
This is particularly important for Turkish historical memory.
While for Bulgarians 1878 is the year of Liberation, for a huge number of Muslim families from the Balkans the period is associated with war, loss of homes and migration.
It is precisely this human aspect that is strongly present in the Turkish narrative.
Bulgaria as part of the “lost Ottoman lands“
This is perhaps the most significant difference in point of view.
The Bulgarian textbook begins the story with the question:
How did Bulgaria restore its statehood?
The Turkish textbook more often asks the question:
How did the Ottoman Empire lose territories and how did this change the state and society?
Both questions describe real parts of the same historical process.
But they lead to a different historical memory.
The Berlin Congress – not only “disintegration of Bulgaria“
From the Bulgarian point of view, the Berlin Treaty is related to the revision of the Treaty of San Stefano and the division of Bulgarian lands.
However, Turkish textbooks also pay attention to another side – The Berlin Congress limited Russian influence and changed some of the harsh conditions imposed on the Ottoman Empire.
Among the results are the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania, the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina, territorial concessions to Russia and new obligations of the Ottoman Empire.
Therefore, for the Turkish student, Berlin is not only “the congress that divides Bulgaria“.
It is part of the great diplomatic redistribution of the Balkans after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
Is there a “San Stefano Bulgaria“ in Turkish education?
Yes.
The concept and the territorial project are present in the teaching materials, but the context is different.
Turkish students are introduced to the fact that the Treaty of San Stefano created a large Bulgarian principality, which was subsequently revised by the Great Powers in Berlin.
They study the sequence:
Russo-Turkish War → Treaty of San Stefano → reaction of the Great Powers → Congress of Berlin → new territorial organization of the Balkans.
A particularly important difference
In Bulgarian historical memory, the date March 3 has a symbolic meaning, because the Treaty of San Stefano is associated with the Liberation.
In the Turkish historical narrative, the date does not carry the same meaning.
It is associated with a treaty concluded after the military defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
This is a natural result of the different historical positions of the two societies.
The same date can be a holiday for one side and a sign of heavy loss for the other.
What should we actually understand from the two narratives?
The history of the Balkans from 1877-1878 can hardly be understood from a single national perspective.
For Bulgarians, this is the history of Liberation.
For Russians, it is part of the Russian-Ottoman rivalry and Russian policy in the Balkans.
For the Ottomans, it is war, defeat, huge territorial losses and the subsequent migration crisis.
For the Great Powers, it is another stage in the struggle for influence over the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire.
And for today's historians, it is a complex process in which national movements, great powers, empires and local societies act simultaneously.
And that's exactly why it's interesting to read what children on the other side of the border are learning.
Because sometimes the best way to understand our own history is to see how the same events look through the eyes of another.