Are you having a laugh? What did she actually do to govern the British Empire? And even if she did have the amount of control over her realm I can think of a few hiccups. The famine in Ireland alone is a big enough mess up to stop any consideration of her being the best world leader in history.
She has a vagina. That qualifies her to be better at anything and everything than any men throughout human history, or so Bast thinks.
Not very well-advised reforms. The Greeks (among others) objected very strongly to his reforms, which essentially installed Persian institutions and customs throughout his empire. It's probably good, in that sense, that his empire collapsed - Western civilization would have been nipped in the bud and Orientalized before it ever really got off the ground.
Thankyou, I've been saying that since this thread started.
And, as has been pointed out, Charlemagne's empire outlasted him. Louis ruled a united Frankish empire afterwards. I don't really think Charlemagne was all that great either, though: at least, not to the degree of Augustus or the like. Marginally more succesful than Alexander, in that he laid the basis for two entities (France and Germany) at least one of which was quite durable, down to the present day.
Agreed. Although one could argue that Charlemagne also had a hell of a lot more time to cnsolidate his state than Alexander did.
He reforms had more to do with Politics than customs.
When political reforms go against the customs of the dominant power they lead to friction. Friction is not good. In fact, friction is quite bad, especially when said friction is among those responsible for keeping the reformer in power. Because it tends to deprive the reformer of power. Hell, it happened in Japan as recently as 1993.
Plus his empire did not just simply collapse. You are aware that the mpire of Alexander lived in the successor empires that followed and Greek and eastern got even more closer. But no western civilization did not become Orientalized
You fail at reading comprehension. Firstly, the Empire did collapse. That's why we speak of successor
states. we use the plural because there were more than one. Secondly, frekk didn't state that Western civilisation became Orientalised, he said:
It's probably good, in that sense, that his empire collapsed - Western civilization would have been nipped in the bud and Orientalized before it ever really got off the ground.
In other words, if Alexander had lived, and his reforms succeeded,
then Greece, and therefore the West, would have been Orientalised.
Actually the opposite happened in the regions of the Alexadrian empire. Who knows how western civilization would be , if those regions had not been in an extent been hellenized. You are aware of the several great minds of the hellenistic and even later the Roman era that came from Alexandria and other cities of Alexander's empire. This happened because both Alexander and his successors actively pursued this.
You just kind of proved his point for him.
You are simply unhistorical. Who knows how western civilization would be if not for Alexander.
No, he's right. Read him correctly, and for that matter, read what I've been saying this whole damn thread, and you'll see that.
In fact the Roman empire may have been assisted in it's attempts to conquer greece due to Alexander's campaign and the pursuit of him and his successorts to immigrate Greeks from Greece into the areas of the empire , weakening it...
And Rome also played a big role into shaping up western civilization.
Great minds from those regions influenced by the mix of Greek with those cultures , continued to come even after that when Christianity came into the Roman empire...
Now imagine if it never happened how would the world be. And how would western civilization be.
Continuing to prove said point.
Mistake of the century ? One of the worst rulers ever ? 
