Alexander the Great or just Alexander?

Does Alexander deserve to be called "Alexander the Great"?  Why or why not?

Alexander fully deserves to have "The Great" as his title despite his few shortcomings.  Alexander managed to stave off the Darius's army despite having an army of about 48,000 at the Battle of Gaugamela.  Darius's forces retreated, and Babylon surrendered.  I would imagine that other leaders would not have the ability to discipline their army so well to fend for themselves against the Persian army.  Alexander the Great was also resourceful.  When his troops ran out of food, they relied on pack animals for their nutrition: raw pack animals.  His army would consume the raw meat, but they also consumed a plant juice (silphium) that would treat the flatulence and stomach pain brought about by the raw meat.  Alexander was also able to manipulate his men to retain their loyalty to him.  When he was brought water, he dumped it out because he wanted everyone to be able to have water instead of just one.

Alexander the Great did have some shortcomings.  He is easily persuaded.  Even though Alexander the Great was under the influence of alcohol, he should not have listened to the idea that Persepolis should be burned; this act of revenge was not necessary.  Alexander was also impulsive; there were bound to be people who bad-mouth him.  Alexander speared Calisthenes when Calisthenes said that Philip III was more successful.  Alexander also let his power get to his head; he declared that he should be worshiped as a god. These shortcomings are not enough to warrant the removal of "The Great".