pothos.org

I do not believe that Alexander the great should actually be called great

Well, this has been discussed before at the very highest academic levels... but it would probably be a little more helpful, and more conducive to debate, if you were to give us your reasons for thinking that...All the bestMarcus

If he isn't great, then who is?

Tell that to the Greeks (at least those in the north). I also believe he was originally called
"The Invincible Alexander". Both titles are quite suitable. Who else achieved so much in such a short time?

was he ? im doing him in a report and i have no idea

IF HE WASN'T GREAT, OTHERS WOULD HAVE EQUALED OR EVEN SURPASSED WHAT HE DID.BUT NOBODY HAS,AND NOBODY WILL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIT THE BOOKS FLOPPO. REGARDS.

While I agree that 'Floppo' should give us a bit more if this is to be a worthwhile debate, I do think it is a valid question. In the Ancient History Bulletin there was a series of articles debating this very point, sparked off by a piece from Ian Worthington, arguing that there was no justification in calling him "great".So by all means let's have the debate, but someone first of all needs to give us some reasons why he *shouldn't* be called "great".All the bestMarcus

This comment draws to mind the old, and usually offensive, saying that children should be seen, not heard.

And do a much better job than Ian Worthington!

Wasn't "The Great" merely a convenient tag, a means by which Ancient World historians and others could distinguish which Alexander was being talked about from the other historical Alexanders who existed during the same time period?