The article analyzes public thought concerning the issue of historical memory of the participants in the Turkestan campaigns and the forms of monumental commemoration of figures who ensured the incorporation of the Turkestan Region into the Russian Empire. Within this framework, the study examines a range of opinions expressed in debates over the installation of military monuments in Turkestan, including the positions of the so-called “old Turkestanis,” representatives of state authorities, Orientalists, publicists, and other commentators. In the course of analyzing the materials, the author arrives at a number of conclusions. The greatest interest in projects of monumental commemoration was shown by conservative-minded public figures who, despite a general proximity of views, often occupied polar positions. Discussion of the very idea of erecting monumental memorials began as early as the period of active military campaigns in Turkestan, but reached its peak in the early twentieth century, when imperial commemorative policy began to pay greater attention to Asian episodes of Russia’s military history. The debate itself addressed the correlation between the merits of the “conquerors” and the “organizers,” the national aspect (“Russians versus Germans”), the choice of location and form of the monument, as well as the search for financial resources. During the prolonged discussions, no consensus was reached even on the fundamental question of whom the monument should be dedicated to. The very process of intense debate in the press and publicist writings reflected the contradictions inherent in imperial memory politi cs: between the centralization of historical narratives and local interpretations, ambitions and resources, the cult of heroes and the search for a shared image of the region. The study is based on an analysis of periodical press sources (Turkestanskie Vedomosti, Russkii Invalid, Grazhdanin, among others), as well as publicist and memoir materials.