From what I've read, Alexander the Great was very progressive. Many Christian historians have slandered him, partly because he wasn't Christian, bur mostly because it was well known that he was a homosexual, but also well known to be a military genius and great leader. So they often use words like "barbarian" to describe him, when it was far from his actual character. He wasn't perfect, but he (mostly) was very progressive in how he treated conquered lands and leaders with humane laws and requirements as he added them into his empire. His ideas however were a couple thousand years before their time.

It was after his lover Hephaestion fell in battle that he himself seemed to decline in his drive and he himself was soon injured in battle receiving a lung wound which never healed completely and eventually killed him. When he died his empire fell apart without him there to hold it together.

@snytiger6 Making conquering countries sound like chess moves and him a progressive overlord is not my idea of progressive. Sorry, and the hundreds if not thousands of people who died trying to keep their country did not benefit from his genteel hand at subduing his new constituents.

@Barnie2years If you judge historical persons by the times and cultures that shaped them, not by modern day standards, then yes, Alexander the Great was progressive in the way treated conquered countries and regions considering the prevalent norms of the time and culture of his time period. Much of the reforms in government he established were major advances whose influence were in many cases seen as the most advanced until the establishment of the Magna Carta.

Genghis Kahn conquered many more lands and larger territories, but he is not as admired because although he was a great general, he did not advance the way governments ruled, and in fact contributed nothing to advancing civilization(s) forward. Alexander didn't just conquer, but tried to improve the all the territories he conquered. Which was very progressive for that time period.