Alexander the Great was a general and a king, he brought many changes to the ancient world, but he was 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 a large part of the then known world and very quickly too. Alexander was not great because he was power hungry, greedy and very spoiled. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayAlexander was a very power-hungry person. He took control of the land all the way to India, and would most likely have taken more if his army had not refused to continue, he would have imposed his culture on other conquered civilizations by building large, mock city-states, and also building large libraries with information about its cultures all within them. Alex also killed those who did not believe what he believed or did not agree with him, writes Ian Worthington "Thus in 330 he gave the execution order for two senior generals (Philotas and Parmenion) who had a history of challenging the Alexander's growing favoritism towards Orientals." Practices". This quote proves my point that Alexander would not allow people to 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 in and where he came from. Alex would abuse his army to the breaking point, Alex pushed his soldiers forward, conquest after conquest, his soldiers had enough and left, leaving Alex no choice but to abandon him too , all of Alex's conquest was then followed by the creation of mock cities and construction of vast libraries, this was known as the Hellenistic era. Alex was also given 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 embarks on a campaign to spread his Hellenistic era to the world. Eastern world leaving hundreds of dead citizens and soldiers in his path, Ian Worthing writes "He chased and slaughtered so many one source writes of them crossing a bridge of corpses", this shows how Alex didn't care who he had to slaughter to get what he wanted . Alexander 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, with his father having already faced the struggles of raising and protecting a civilization. Alex was kind of, just standing there, waiting for trouble to arise and grow his already feared army without worrying about the well-being of his city. Alex was nothing without his father, it is believed that without Philip II, Alex could not have come to power and started the Hellenistic era, Ian Worthington writes "Without Philip II, there would be no Alexander the Great." This statement is very accurate, Alex's harsh ways would most likely not make him the ideal leader that people would want in an unstable city, but then again, Alex didn't have to worry about any unstable city when he came to power, another piece of evidence to support this is that when you learn about Alex, you clearly see that he cared a lot about his military and not his city-state, often executing others who disagreed with him,.