When evaluating a historical figure we should take into consideration not only one aspect of that figure's rule, but also his/her performance overall throughout the entire duration of his/her reign. The same reasoning should apply to Alexander III of Macedon, commonly known as "Alexander the Great". But unfortunately Alexander seems to be exempt from this line of reasoning. The vast majority of people, professional historians and amateurs alike, have been bestowing the epithet of "the Great" upon Alexander III simply because of his military skills and the fact that he conquered the largest and most powerful and sophisticated empire the world had known. The Alexandrian cult of personality has dominated history since the days following the death of Alexander himself, and a lot of people in the West for example find in the figure of Alexander III an ideal hero of Western civilisation who set out to successfully conquer the "oriental" Persians and spread the glory of Western civilisation to the "barbaric East", which is a skewed Eurocentric perspective to say the least. That he swiftly conquered the Persian Empire without losing a single battle and ushered in a new era has led people to unduly glorify the figure of Alexander beyond its actual prominence and merit.
If Alexander had only been a military commander and not a king, I would not have disputed his epithet. But on the contrary, Alexander III was not just a general, but also a king, and kings are judged based on their conduct not only in the battlefield, but also on the throne as rulers of men and women, leaders of nations, upholders of justice, promoters of prosperity, and citizens of civilisations. On the battlefield, Alexander was indeed great (disputed by some), but outside the realm of warfare he was an abysmal failure. He had severe alcohol problems, murdered friends, was extremely arrogant, did not respect his men and their limits, marched through the Gedrosian Desert in order to punish his soldiers; engaged in mass murder of innocent men, women, and children, razed cities to the ground, and died without naming an heir, leading to the immediate disintegration of an empire that had kept order, stability, and prosperity throughout most of the known world for 230 years. His legacy was the dawn of the Hellenstic Age that brought about the death/decline of many native cultures, which is not something to celebrate unless you are a chest-thumping Philhellene. With that having been said, it appears that judging Alexander as a "complete package" as opposed to only a general leads me to the conclusion that Alexander III is not worthy of being called "the Great". Overall, Alexander seems to be on par with history's most despicable figures, the likes of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun; great conquerors, but worthless rulers.
On a related topic, what epithet do you think we should attach to Alexander III other than "the Great"? Well I have a few in mind:
- The Conqueror
- The Terrible
- The Winesack
- The Drunk
- The Hammered
- The Tanked
- The Murderer
- The Paranoid
- The Narcissist
- The Pseudo-God
- The Spoilt
- The Egotist
- The Overrated
- The Mediocre
- The Lucky
- The Undefeated