How do you define wrong?
Okay, here’s an argument that he deserved to be called Great.
Warfare was preety much endemic. Countries were always invading their weaker neighbours. Same thing with political intrigue; rivals are always plotting to overthrow the king. So you can’t condemn Alexander for doing these things because they would have happened regardless of what he personally did.
But he did try to put a stop to the violence. How? By taking charge. He knew that the only wat to stop revolts was to eliminate his rivals and the only way to stop wars was to conquer every other country. Yes, a lot people died in the process but in the end the world would have been a lot more peaceful after Alexander than it had been before him.
Alexander’s only “fault” was that died unexpectedly young before he could finish the job of building a stable and peaceful empire.
They are all pretty decent. He currently doing a series on English literature where he is discussing a few books that kids would have to read for school. His brother did a set on biology and ecology that I did not find as interesting.
Well, that and that he chose people a lot like the people he was trying to stop for his own generals, which led to the chaos and oppression during and after the Wars of the Diadochi.
Here is the pit thread on Socrates’s persecution: Socrates’s Persecution was Unjust
Another fault was that he kept on marching east and conquering even after Darius III was dead. If, at that point, he had marched back west to Babylon and consolidated his rule and got on with the business of begetting an heir a few years sooner (Hephaestion weren’t never gonna get pregnant no matter how hard they tried), and left conquering the Persian Empire’s eastern territories for later or for his heir, then his empire might have lasted longer. But Alexander was a megalomaniac, and leading the army and conquering was what he did best, and he had been almost continuously at war in the field since his father died; hard to break a lifelong habit. But Philip, had he lived longer and led the invasion of Persia, would have acted more sensibly.
It’s better if you watch them in order. They are not very long. Just watch em till you don’t like them.
Is your definition different than others’?
Why are we continuing this tangent?
Do you have any better ideas?
But again, Alexander was only 20 when he became king and only 32 when he died. Sure he surrounded himself with warriors and fought wars - you’ve got to secure your power base before you do anything else. But we have no idea what he might have done if he had lived a normal lifespan.
Compare Alexander to Augustus. Augustus fought wars in his early years to secure his power and then settled down and spend the second half of his life building a stable regime. But if Augustus had died at 32 in the middle of his war with Antony, he’d only be remembered as a warrior.
But, he could just as easily have done that without fighting his way eastward of the Persian heartland. Once Darius III was dead, Alexander had won.
But then he would only have been Alexander the Slightly Above Average.
If he’s shocked by Alexander the Great wait until he gets to Peter the Great!
A true megalomaniac, whose namesake city is built on the bones of conscripted serfs who died building it . . . Which, come to think of it, still makes him a sweetheart of a guy, by Russian-Tsar standards.
Only one namesake city ? Pffft. Slacker.
Yes, Alexander had at least 17 Alexandrias; not counting later cities named after those.
You don’t say ? 
And to add insults to injury, not only has he been pitted, but also now being called a lush.
Eh, he’s always been called a lush - nothing new there. He may have even ended his days from poisoned wine ( quite plausible, though utterly unprovable ).
Nonetheless as drunken, paranoid, violent, narcissistic megalomaniacs go, he was one heck of a guy :D.