Does Alexander the III of Macedon, deserve to be "Great"?

by Shwily

I know how Alexander is known for conquering much of the known world and taking down the Persian empire, but how much of that is actually his achievement? His army was the same as it was under Philip and Im sure his commanders had a huge role in his battles. So how did Alexander become great?

XenophonTheAthenian

I wrote answers here and here that might be of interest to you. The latter I think in particular, since you seem to be more focused on his military career

AbideMan

Two books I have read, one during his life (Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biograph by Peter Green) and one regarding his empire (Hellenistic World: Revised Edition by F. W. Walbank) have led me to many conclusions and I would certainly say that the "great" title is fitting.

Aside from the the speed of conquest and large size of his empire he had to reconcile the politics, philosophy and religion of many cultures. Alexander did not simply try to impose Greek life on everywhere he conquered as much as he tried to adapt to it. I would even argue he embraced much of the foreign culture that he encountered.

In terms of the army being the same as under Philip, I suppose you could technically say that, but Alexander used it completely differently and employed very interesting new ways to use that army. The Battle of Gaugamela is a great example of his unorthodox tactics.

Searocksandtrees