Alexander the Great: Conqueror or Killer?

"This army Alexander inherited, and with it the idea that war meant not the defeat of the enemy, the return of the dead, the construction of a trophy and the settlement of existing disputes but rather the annihilation of all combatants and the destruction of the culture itself that had dared to field such opposition to his imperial rule."
- Victor Davis Hanson, Butcher of Macedon

Alexander the Great is known as one of the greatest, most skilled battle strategists of all time, as he continued to take over a vast area of Asia Minor, Persia, winning war after war, combat after combat and taking life after life. He and his army killed thousands upon thousands, relentless in their slaughterings, whether man, woman, child, slave. But were these killings all justified? That is the question historians have and will continue to ask themselves for years to come, and the only real answer is, in my opinion, no. He was merciless in allowing endless amounts of lives to be taken on his account without a single regret. He felt he was born a warrior, and therefore meant to kill. So he conquered as much territory as possible, to fulfill his own greedy need to be almighty. How can this be justified?