Determining Greatness

GREAT- [greyt] Show IPA adjective,-er, -est, adverb, noun,pluralgreats, (especially collectively) great, interjection
-unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity
-important; highly significant or consequential
-distinguished; famous

I was intrigued by the two contrasting views of Alexander the Great depicted in the History
Channel documentary and the "Butcher of Macedon" essay. The documentary seemed to better fit the image of the man whose legend has lived on for millenia, but the essay (despite its negative tone) is probably valid too. I think the mistake is to assume that only one depiction of this "great" man is accurate.
The documentary told the story of a brilliant military strategian and intellectual who expanded Greece's empire; the essay focused on the horrific means by which Alexander executed his conquests, suggesting that in truth he was no more than a weak alcoholic with a penchant for bloodshed. We cannot regard these events as mutually exclusive. In fact, in all likelihood, Alexander was considered great because he was ruthless. Disregarding 21st century views of "greatness" and considering instead those of the ancient world, we find that greatness is inspired by fear. In nations of warriors, a weak and compromisable man would never have achieved such feats. To vanquish, he would have had to be strong, determined, and probably terrifying. Without being able to inspire fear, he would not have been regarded as a threat.
Combining the two views, we arrive at what is probably the most accurate depiction of Alexander; war tactician who used his intellect and skill to inspire fear in those around him, often through violence and bloodshed, to achieve the ultimate goal: building an empire. Does this qualify him as great?
Just look at the definition.