Imagine being a young adult and inheriting an entire empire, and then 10 years later conquering another empire. That’s what 20-year-old Alexander III of Macedonia, better known as Alexander the Great, accomplished. Alexander inherited the city states of Greece and the Kingdom of Macedonia after the death of his father, King Philip, in 336 BC. Alexander set out with his father’s army to conquer the Persian Empire soon thereafter. But does he truly deserve the title of ‘Alexander the Great?’ Does his military genius serve as a reason for greatness, or does the slaughtering of thousands of innocent people show his lack of greatness? Despite the good Alexander brought forth to the ancient world, it is obvious that he is indeed not great. First, Alexander was not great because he was a narcissist who had believed that he himself had descended from gods. He was so incredibly full of himself, there are more than ten cities that he named ‘Alexandria’ in honor of his own name. A great man should think of others, not himself. For example, when the poor guy who found his hat band returned it to him, Alexander ordered for the man to be decapitated, insisting that ‘he should not allow the head that had worn the royal head band to be safe.’ And when the Tyrians refused to back down from Alexander and his men, he obliterated their city, reducing it to ashes and dead bodies. Clearly this is no act of a great man, but of an egomaniac. Secondly, Alexander ‘the Great’ was responsible for the death of thousands. For instance, in his four major battles he slaughtered approximately 100,000 enemy troops. And when he conquered Tyre, he slaughtered thousands of the innocent civilians and sold 30,000 people into slavery, all because they were able to hold off the conquering of their city for seven months. Alexander even crucified 2,000 men of military age, which is a deplorable punishment that was highly unnecessary. This was in no way grea