1) Does Alexander deserve to be called “great”?

        Alexander does deserve to be called great, but it all depends on what someone’s definition of great is. He was great in a sense off his occupation as a general, but not necessarily his character or his morals.  Although he was a bad person, and he ran away from some of his problems, he still was very successful and accomplished a lot in his short life of thirty-three years.  He knew how to command troops at the age of sixteen, he was a great leader, he conquered many empires, and he never lost even one battle.

        Alexander was one of the most successful generals in the world.  He fought in many battles, none in which he ever lost, and he conquered some of the most powerful empires in the world at that time.  Some of those empires included Persia, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, and India.  By the age of 16, Alexander was already able to command troops, so when he took over his fathers spot after Phillip’s death, he was already ready to lead the military.  Immediately after his inauguration, he set off to do what his father was working on, conquering all of these different city states. His first priority was conquering Persia, helping to make Macedon the most powerful empire in the world at that time.  After conquering all of these regions, Alexander had basically started his own culture in which was called “Hellenistic”.  He had spread his Greek culture around the world, but also mixed that culture in with all of the other empires lifestyles.  Alexander was becoming more of a sultan too. He began to change his appearance, preferring a mixture of Persian and Macedonian clothing, despite the obvious displeasure of his troops, and he had also assumed the upright tiara, the symbol of Persian kingship not only did he spread the culture, but also the democratic government too.  He wanted this new period so bad that he married a Persian woman to show the mixing of the empires, causing some men to revolt.  Although Alexander did all of these great things, he was still not a good person with a bad character.

        “He was a brutal conqueror without constructive plans for the future of his empire” (Pomeroy).  If your definition of great is the type of person someone was, Alexander was very far from great.  After his father’s assassination, rumors were going around through the city-states that Alexander paid his fathers assassin to kill him, so that Alexander could easily rise to power.  This shows how power hungry Alexander really was, because he wanted to be king and have power so bad that he could’ve possibly killed his father.  Many wise men that had been working for his father requested that Alexander may start his kingship slow, after his father’s death, he quickly took Phillip’s spot without hesitation, disregarding any hesitations.  He went straight to war, finishing his fathers starting’s.  A lot of the time, Alexander wasn’t doing what was right for his country. An example was when he attacked the Triballi tribe for just humiliating his father, and then brutally attacked an island where Triballi had stuck their women and children for safety.  Alexander had been gone from Macedon and the other Greek city-states so long that many had thought he was dead.  People in the city-states started a revolt after hearing this untrue news.  He returned and showed them he was alive and killed anyone who defied him and that news.  

        One of the definitions of great is of high rank; official position; or social standing.  Another definition of this multiple meaning word is important; highly significant or consequential.  There is no real definition of great, but because I used these definitions to define this confusing word, Alexander does deserve to be called great.

2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

        Someone can learn about the value of society based on their own views of greatness, because if someones definition of great for a figure was the type of person that the he may be, then they may realize that society needs a leader with good morals and character.  In that case, Alexander would not be a good leader, for he was a terrible person.  Not very many people realized how bad of a person Alexander "the Great" was, and many can argue that the Macedon empire would have been a better empire, because it would've been more governed.  Alexander was great in war and he built his own culture or period, but he didn't do very much for his empire.  He disappeared north for very many years and citizens living in the city states didn't know whether or not he had survived  Altogether, Alexander could've showed the world what to look for in an empire, because arguably war is not all of what every country or empire is about.

3) Do time and distance impact someone popular perception?
        Yes, time and distance do impact someones popular perception.  Until recently, historians and people believed that Alexander the Great was an amazing leader and ruler, because thats what people living in that time had written down, and those were the facts that we had known.  Many only knew him as this amazing general who conquered many empires and never won a battle, but now many are starting to question how great he was. Back in the time of Alexander, communication wasn't even near its best, and clearly Alexander wasn't very good at the communication skill.  The further the troops would travel, the harder it would be to communicate.  The time that Alexander had been away plus the distance he had traveled could have given his citizen a bad perception of him.  They could feel like he wasn't protecting him, or like he didn't really care about that particular cry state, causing many riots.  It took a while for Alexander to hear about these riots, because of the communication.  He returned to his empires and threatened all of them.
       The fact that its been many years since all of these occurrences, could cause people to change their minds about Alexander the so called "great".  The distance and time that Alexander was gone back then was so significant that people would kill each other over it, and that shows what kind of ruler Alexander was.
Bibliography:

o   Grossman, Mark. World Military Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Facts On File, 2007. Print.

o   Pomeroy, Sarah B. Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

o   Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2014.

o   Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Ancient History Bulletin, 1999. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

o   MacKendrick, Paul Lachlan. Greece and Rome: Builders of Our World. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1968. Print.

o   "Great." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.