Alexander the Great

"Alexander the Great" is a slightly ostentatsious title for the conquerer from Macedonia. Alexander was a brilliant leader and an extremely clever and risky military leader even at a very young age. All of these qualitites should allow him the title "Alexander the Great," however I believe many leaders throughout history have had these exact same qualities. I understand that the feat Alexander achieved was extraodinary considering his frequently outnumbered troops and his extremely young age, but many military leders throughout the ages have done this and more. According to the text in our book, Alexandra conquered the empire of Persia and was also the leader of Greece and Macedonia as well as the parts of India that he later conquered. However he was not the prosperous king of this empire for many years and in that time he did burn the capital of Persia to the ground. His people loved him dearly but his troops did end up rallying against him and refused to continue into India even though this violated his orders. Alexander the Great was an extraordinary leader, but so was George Washington, Cyrus of the Persian Empire, Hammurabi, or Abraham Lincoln. There have also been other great conquestors such as Pizarro, Napolean, or even Hitler who all have conquered large parts of the world. But no one in the world added a complimentary adjective to the end of their name. Alexander was in fact a fantastic leader, but there is no reason that he deserves a suffix of this nature to his name when our own first founding President does not recieve one.