Is Alexander truly one who we should call great? To better define great, the dictionary proves as a valued source. Great is defined as being powerful, superior in quality or character, distinguished and even aristocratic. Yes, Alexander was powerful and very distinguished and had quite a large empire. However, like every rose has its thorn so did Alexander. Would a person who is truly great force his people into war all the time for his own gain? Would a person who is truly great cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of his own men? Or would this person who is truly great murder his friends because he is a drunk with a bad temper? If this defines greatness, then Alexander would be great. Referring back to the dictionary definition of "great", it is obvious that Alexander is not a great individual. Rather he was nothing but a ruthless monster striving to feed his desires to become more powerful. There is no doubt that he was truly one of the most powerful men of his time, but with power comes great responsibility; something that Alexander neglected to ever obtain. Instead of watching over his empire, he chose to go out and fight constants wars to make it larger. Alexander basically sacrificed his own men for his own personal gain. Given his disregard of the feelings of his own people, it is obvious that his belief in his own divinity and his attempts to be recognized as a god while alive are the keys to his actions and motives.
Alexander fails miserably in what is expected of a king. The chaos revealed in that short-lived compromise in Babylon in June 323, shortly after the king breathed his last, was not solely owing to the personal ambitions of various generals (and one secretary), but the result of Alexander's neglect of his country and empire. His hyperactivity in putting constant expansion over administration, not to mention not providing an adult heir, cost the empire any unity and chance of surviving him intact.
