In this article when I reference the title of "the Great" I do not reference it as an attributive term. Like many other rulers during antiquity he was given the title of "the Great" like Ivan IV of Russia received the title of "the Terrible". "the Great" is merely a part of his name.

I do understand that the legend stands as more of a metaphor and this can be interpreted differently by all readers. One could just as easily attribute the cutting of the knot to Alexander's straightforwardness rather than the conclusion you have arrived at, both being equally valid.

Unlike Genghis or Stalin, to my knowledge, Alexander didn't take part in such large scale massacres. Although he was known as the Monster of Macedonia and did slaughter many civilians during his conquest, as most military leaders at the time, it would be disingenuous to compare his deeds to those of the aforementioned leaders.

In my opinion, I like to look at these achievements from a military standpoint, and from this angle, Alexander was "Great". Choosing another angle by which you want to analyse him might lead to some opposing findings, something which shouldn't take away from the previous statement. It is undeniable that Alexander was a great military mind akin to the likes of Wellington and Napoleon, other aspects of his conquest should be looked at separately.

Student of Philosophy, Politics and Economics. History fanatic. Contact: