Many definitions have been made for history and it is seen that an aspect of history is referred to in each definition. According to Cicero,; “history is the memory of mankind”. Just as memory is extremely important for an individual, so is history, for humanity. It has been thought since the time of Cicero that there is an analogical connection between memory and history. Therefore, a historian is in the position of a memory guardian who protects memory and preserves the past. In reality, however, history cannot tell all of the past to the future generations or keep it, because not all incidents that occurred in the past can be recorded. A historian is a person who decides what can qualify as history and what cannot, by selecting some of the past events, and writing them down and indeed each preference/choice is at the same time a renunciation. In this sense, a certain part of the past is conveyed as history to subsequent generations and this state of affairs arises from the very nature of history. Yet, sometimes a historian may ignore some events either purposely or due to some pressure or prefers to tell them in a way that they are in conflict with the real facts. Keeping silent/not writing down is considered to be self-censorship if there is no external pressure, and depicting the existing reality in a different way can be regarded as distortion. In this study, five incidents in the classical period of the Ottoman history (1300-1600) which were either not recorded by historians of the time or described in a way contrary to the facts will be dealt with within the scope of an article seeking answers to the questions; who were those who did/could not write them down, what was it that was not written down, where and when the incidents in question took place, and how and why self-censorship or distortion was performed.