Alexander "the Great"? Nah, I don't think so.

Alexander "the Great"...a name that would suggest a heroic, noble nature; a role model, a leader. But was he really that great? Honestly, I don't think so. First off, the guy seemed to be a bit full of himself...and by "full of himself", I mean to say that the dude really loved himself. Enlisting servants to follow you about and document your life? You would have to be pretty vain for such an action as that. However, Alexander did it. From this, I take that his ego was vastly blown up and out of proportion. Adding to this, he named a handful of cities that he conquered "Alexandria", after himself. Really man? One was not enough? Clearly he cared more about himself and his image than he cared for his people. As a leader, you have a responsibility to your people. As Alexander seemed more concerned for himself, I definitely wouldn't assign the title "the Great" to him...he needed to focus more on the wellbeing of his people. In addition, he obviously did not care about the ideals of his troops either. This is proven quite distinctly in his pursuit of Bessus, Darius's murderer. The kill of Bessus was highly unnecessary - he did not pose a threat to neither Alexander nor his people. Yet Alexander led his troops farther and farther away from home, despite their unwillingness. Clearly, Alexander cherished his childish need for revenge over the basic needs of his troops. One may also considered how many lives were lost of the troops in transit to the capture. Personally, I do not feel that the revenge of one compensates for the death or injuries of many innocent soldiers. Finally, the burning of Persepolis...it was a unnecessary and murderous act of Alexander, as innocent people were obviously killed. I stand by my belief that Alexander most certainly was not "the Great".