Alexander the Great

Is Alexander the Great really "Great"? In James Romm's edit of recollections from authors Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtuis of Alexander's life, we are presented the good and bad tales and parts of Alexander's life. So, James Romm presents the question: Should Alexander be considered great? Like James Romm suggests, I as a modern reader have formed my own opinions of Alexander and if he should indeed be considered "Great". In my opinion, while Alexander was a man whom had qualities that could consider him great, he continuously harmed or killed those close to him and attempted to base a civilization of hypocritical principles. Alexander the Great, or Alexander III of Macedon, was the son Phillip II, the king of Macedon, who lived in 323-356 B.C., and succeeded the throne and army after the assassination of his father. Alexander was best known for his creation of the Macedonian empire, and for his tactics on expansion, and his campaign that lasted 10 years. He is contributed with leading his armies in the infamous Phalanx formation, and for the creation of the Delian league. Although his is an iconic figure in Greek history, the question remains, should Alexander be considered great? Was he really great? Maybe not, but Alexander did possess some qualities that were indeed great. In defense to Alexander, it could be put into perspective that Alexander did some of his most questionable actions to prove his political validity and power to his followers. For instance, when Philotas is informed by Dymnus of the conspiracy against Alexander begins to suspect that Philotas is behind the plot, he tortures him and eventually orders for his father Parmenio to be assassinated. While it may seem inhumane to have someone executed on such little evidence, had Alexander not ordered him to be tortured, it could have led to Alexander's army questioning Alexander's power. This could have also lead to various more threats on Alexander's life. Suppose Philotas