What makes you say Alexander the Great? He never lost, conquered the Persian empire in an astounding amount of time and his victory at Gaugamela was a strategic masterpiece.
Alexander was an egoistic, greedy maniac with a comfortable situation. His father built the army and even made the actual plans, since he wanted to attack the persians as well before he was murdered - most historians say by order of Alexander himself. Besides inheriting the finest army in the world from his father, Alexander also ‘inherited’ Philip’s outstanding Chief-of-Staff, the 64-year-old Parmenion. In fact, Alexander seems to have behaved exactly as one would have expected a young cavalry commander to have behaved. For ever pursuing danger, heedless of risk, yet never in full command and control of the battle. Meanwhile, Parmenion, commanding the infantry phalanx was the true commander. It is also hardly creditable that Alexander ever gave a thought to the enormous logistical problems his army faced. Again, it is more that probable that Parmenion’s wealth of experience was the driving force in dealing with such mundane but vital matters.
Also, Alexander was a terrible ruler, who wasn‘t able to actually rule a country. There a numerous evidences e.g the low taxes, the permanent rebellions, the fact that he wanted to make his very own empire instead of a stable one and of course that the empire perished immediatly after his death.
All in all, he had his moments but there is nothing great about him.