I truthfully don't have many thoughts about Alexander the Great until I return to my study of the primary sources of ancient Greek history, where he presents a problem since most everything about him comes from quite a while after he died. Needless to say that I am fascinated by his relationship with Bagoas but frankly there are Roman emperors whose relationships with their eromenos were very disruptive and so much more interesting, either due to excessive respect as with Domitian and Earinus or due to a mix of feminization and extremely high power, as with Sporus and Nero. Both of these are more fascinating imo not to mention well known ones like Antinous.

As for Alexander in popular consciousness, it is interesting to note how he is an example of how someone, in the epic and romance-traditions of the bards and myth-making scribes, can become a fantastical heroic figure despite being 100% also a historical figure, much like we know that Alexandros ("Alaksandu") of Troy (Wilusa) was a real historical character that took part in a real Trojan war against either Mycenaeans or their Luwian proxies, yet as he appears to us in the Greek record no doubt has nothing of this historical person, much like Alexander's submarine has nothing to do with the man himself. But it does bring up interesting questions of legendary characters which in their behavior seem historical, such as Agamemnon, or Achilles, or Empress Jingu, does it not?