Alexander the Great debate - Did Alexander deserve to be called Great?

- How do we define 'Greatness'? Did Alexander meet these criteria?
- Is 'Greatness' in any way reliant on morals? Can a person who is 'great' also legitimately be a tyrant? Was Alexander a tyrant?
- Can we judge the morality of a historical figure? Morality changes over time...
- Should Alexander's 'Greatness' actually be credited to his father, Philip?
- Alexander's achievements - unifying Greece, having a city named after him, his fight against the Persians - can these be used to define him as Great?
- Is Alexander only great because our sources are often in his favour? Would he be considered 'Great' if viewed from all perspectives?
  - Alexander became King by the age of 20...his personal achievements make him great. By the age of 33, he had conquered much of the world. Or is Alexander's age irrelevant?  Was he always destined to be king...is it therefore not an achievement which can influence our judgement of his Greatness?
- Does Alexander's relationship with Aristotle help to define him as Great? Was Alexander's relationship with Aristotle still strong as an adult?
- Did Alexander's companions encourage his use of alcohol with the aim of quickening his death? Did he have unquestioned loyalty from his companions or quiet deceit? Does this have a bearing on his Greatness when viewed through our definitions of what it means to be Great?