There have only been a few men throughout history who have been able to remake the world in their own image. I’m not just talking about becoming a historical figure, about leaving their mark on the world. Rather, I speak of the individuals who, with a good amount of ability and an even greater amount of luck and circumstance, have been able to essentially become the sole focal point to whom everyone else in that time period and location merely orbited around. When I think of these people great figures like Alexander the Great, Augustus, Genghis Khan and many more. However, despite the magnitude of these personages, their stature is probably magnified by the fact that they lived in either illiterate societies or ones full of propaganda in their favor.

Napoleon was a man that many would consider great, yet we don’t hold him in the same esteem we hold these other seemingly mythical figures. He came from a moderately wealthy Corsican noble family and managed to become First Consul of the French people at the age of 30. For 12 years he fought the bloodiest wars of the 19^th century, pitting himself at times against the might of the greatest powers Europe has to offer. And despite all this, he was almost successful. In the end, though, his stunning military successes were overshadowed by two major blunders, the Peninsular War that took place in Iberia and the notoriously disastrous invasion of Russia. And so he was exiled to Elba, from which he made his escape on a fateful day some 199 years ago, on February 26, 1815.

In the battle we all know Napoleon for, that of Waterloo, the French emperor grasped at his last opportunity to restore the French Empire and continue his expansionist practices. In his normal fashion he attempted to divide and conquer the numerically superior forces. Unfortunately, though, his men were unable to pierce through the fierce British line, and the Austrian reinforcements arrived later that day to flank and destroy Napoleon’s last hope. This time he was exiled to the island of St. Helena, where he eventually died in obscurity at the age of 52.

Although I find many faults in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte I have to wonder how he would have been received and remembered if he lived in a different time. Napoleon had to deal with British enmity for the duration of his reign, and this has pervaded how we perceive his legacy. If he did not have to deal with such a preponderance of media, whether it be condemning him or praising him, how would he be received? After all, Alexander died at the age of 32, likely poisoned by his lieutenants, but we don’t remember him for this. Neither do we care that Augustus Caesar left behind the often insane and dysfunctional Julio-Claudian dynasty.

It’s likely that Napoleon thought about this issue many times as he wasted away on the isle of St. Helena. His links to the outside world weakened, his treatment at the hands of his British prisoners inhumane, he probably pondered what his real legacy would be. He remains a household name to this day, but I wonder if his legend could have been any greater in another time.

The chess match that occurred on February 10, 1996 was truly a clash of titans. The two combatants, computer program Deep Blue and Chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov were, at the time, the two greatest chess players of their respective species. And while everyone remembers Deep Blue’s victory in 1997, the battle in 1996 signified the end of an era.

This match signified the last time man could honestly say it was better than machine in the game of chess. Deep Blue took the first game off of Kasparov, but the Russian rallied back to ultimately win the match 4-2.

The match in 1997 ended up differently, with Deep Blue winning the 6-game match 3.5 to 2.5, dethroning the Kasparov, reigning World Champion. Although most people would consider these matches dull and trivial, they illustrate several truths that become only more prevalent as the world moves forward.

Computers have begun to perform tasks that only humans were once thought capable of, like chess. A grandmaster may have an extensive knowledge of chess openings, but for most of the game they rely on pattern recognition. Because there are billions of different board states that can occur in any given game of chess, humans have to use their time economically and look only for the most apparently good moves. Computers do not have to worry about this. Deep Blue had in its database over 700,000 grandmaster games, meaning that it had more information than someone like Kasparov could acquire over several lifetimes. Additionally, Deep Blue was able to calculate up to 20 moves ahead in some cases, whereas even the best of humans can only think 3 to 5 moves ahead.

Considering all this, it is surprising that Kasparov even held his own against such a behemoth. Despite the sheer power of Deep Blue, Kasparov’s creativity and ingenuity was able to give him a leg up. Instead of playing the most common openings which would allow Deep Blue to tap its massive databases, he played uncommon or strange openings to catch the machine off guard. But even creativity cannot stand up to brute force after a certain point, as seen during the 1997 match.

Other developments in the field of artificial intelligence parallel the rise of Deep Blue and signify the prominence of computers in pretty much every field. While Deep Blue is impressive, it is diminished somewhat by the fact that chess has very strict rules that don’t rely on probability or chance. Something like facial recognition is a similar development in that computer programs utilize brute force to accomplish something that computers really have no business doing. And in most fields programmers are stepping forward to supply automated solutions to problems.

In the first game of the 1997 match Deep Blue made a move that would play a huge part in determining the outcome of the series. It was a move that seemed counter intuitive to Kasparov’s eyes. Even so, he believed that Deep Blue was seeing something that he didn’t, that the computer was planning so far ahead that he had no chance to respond. Kasparov lost his composure and forfeited that game. Unfortunately for the World Champion, that move Deep Blue made was a bug, a random move that occurred because the program malfunctioned. And as we look back on this event in history, the end of human domination of chess, we have to wonder what would’ve happened if Kasparov identified that move as a bug. Instead, he treated the computer as infallible, and in doing so, let the end of an era occur.

Everyone today is taught about the evils of imperialism, the risks posed to indigenous populations when stronger and more forceful civilizations impose their will on less fortunate peoples. On February 5, 1885, one of the most barbaric, and from a modern perspective, quizzical, colonies was established. I speak of the establishment of the Congo Free State, a colony under the stringent rule of Leopold II, king of Belgium.

It’s simple to make the case that the Belgian rule over the Congo was barbaric. It has been estimated that approximately 10 million Congolese died over the period from 1885 to 1908. The causes of death were varied but generally sickening: starvation, exhaustion, disease, and even simple murder all attributed to the massive death toll. In the pursuit of Congolese ivory and rubber, the European pillagers of the colony devastated the land and ruined the spirit of the people. The Force Publique, the quasi-military force in charge of resource collection and public order, committed atrocities of the highest order. In sectors where not enough ivory was being collected they were known to murder some of the natives as punishment, cutting of their hands as proof to their superiors that they weren’t wasting bullets. I could go on even more about this, but I think it’s clear that this was no ordinary colony.

What really makes this case interesting to me was how Leopold II, monarch of Belgium, was able to wrestle the dominion of an area 75 times greater than the land he ruled over. Leopold began by creating an organization called the International African Association, ostensibly as a humanitarian organization to improve the lives of Central Africans. He then hired the explorer Henry Stanley, who traveled through the Congo negotiating deals with tribal chiefs. Unwittingly these chiefs were essentially giving control over their land to Leopold, as they didn’t really understand what they were agreeing to. Finally, at the Berlin Conference, Leopold convinced a 14 nation assembly, including the United States, to grant him official control of the Congo as a sort of Personal Union. At this point he still held to his humanitarian lies and the nations involved didn’t seem to care enough to examine him further.

So, with the control of this gigantic colony in hand, Leopold began his 23 year long reign of terror. The same questions have come to me ever since I read Heart of Darkness, a novella by Joseph Conrad that gave a fictional account of the terror of Leopold’s rule. I still wonder how he got away with it. Did the other nations have any inclination of suspicion? It’s likely that they had at least an inkling of suspicion, but nothing was done about it. I also find it hard to believe how the secret was so well kept for so long. Just how could the genocide of 10 million people go unnoticed in the 19^th century, even if it occurs in the heart of darkness?

In 1908 Leopold was forced to relinquish his control of the Congo, and it was put under the control of the Belgian parliament. Other than this he was never punished for his atrocities. Today foreigners have no idea who he is, and the people of Belgium themselves rarely acknowledge the harm he had caused to the natives of Congo. Despite this, it is important to remember what had occurred, as a warning from the past and a remember for the future.