Alexander the Great was a general and a king, he brought many changes to the ancient world, but was he a great leader. Alexander expanded the advanced technology of Greek culture by invading city-states and other cultures. Alexander made his army extremely intelligent and advanced by using engineers and introducing long spears into his army. Alexander was very tactile and managed to conquer much of the known world at that time and very quickly too. Alexander was not great because he was power hungry, greedy and very pampered. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Alexander was a very power-hungry person. He conquered lands as far as India, and very likely would have conquered more if his army had not refused to continue. He would impose his culture on other conquered civilizations by building his own large fictional city-states while creating large libraries containing information about his culture. Alex would also kill those who did not believe in what he believed or disagreed with him, writes Ian Worthington: "So in 330 he gave the order for the execution of two senior generals (Philotas and Parmenion) who used to challenge Alexander's growing favoritism towards the East. Practices.” This quote proves my assertion that Alexander would not let people challenge his beliefs. Everything shown above are all characteristics of a power hungry individual. Alexander was greedy. Alex wanted to control everything, he wanted everyone to know who he was, what he believed and where he came from. Alex was abusing his army to the breaking point, Alex was pushing his soldiers forward, conquest after conquest, his soldiers had had enough and quit, leaving Alex no choice but to give up as well, the entire conquest to give up Alex was then followed by the creation of fictitious cities and the construction of vast libraries, this was what we call the Hellenistic era. Alex also gave everything he needed from his father Philip II before his death in 336, Alex had everything he needed from his city, so with nothing to challenge him and make him more popular, he sets out on a campaign to spread his Hellenistic era to the Eastern World leaving hundreds of dead citizens and soldiers in his path, Ian Worthing writes: "Pursued and massacred so many people, writes one source, crossing a bridge of corpses", that shows how Alex didn't care who he had to slaughter to get what. he wanted it. Alexandre was pampered. Since the death of his father Philip II in 336, Alex was given everything he needed: a united, economically stable, war-ready army and loyal citizens, his father having already faced the struggles to develop and protect a civilization that Alex sort of was, just out there, waiting for trouble to arise and expanding his already feared army with no regard for the well-being of his city. Alex was nothing without his father, it is believed that without Philip II, Alex would not be able to rise to power and begin the Hellenistic era, Ian Worthington writes: “Without Philip II, there would be no Alexander the Great ". This statement is very accurate, Alex's violent ways probably wouldn't make him the ideal leader people would want in an unstable city, but then again Alex didn't have to worry about an unstable city when he came to power, another piece of supporting evidence is that when you learn more about Alex you see clearly that he cared very much about his army and not his city-state, executing.