Norfolk,
Superb Post. It raises the right points and provides many good points for further consideration.

For the purposes of determining who are the Great Generals, I think that it may be best to recognize that generalship, to begin with may consist of, amongst other things, either leadership defined as a force of will exerted in the face of staggering adversity to achieve victory, or, alternatively, some unnamed quality in the absence of such leadership yet still qualifying its possessor for generalship. I do however, agree with marct that the Great Generals should be, where possible classified by tactical, operational, and strategic achievements.
I don't know that we'll ever get to a point where all (and we have some pretty good lists on the thread already - and I'll bet this thread still has allot of life in it) our generals line up - but that is probably a good thing What I think is of most value here is the discussion of "why" for all the reasons you mention above. Its truly a fascinating thread that by virtue of its subject discusses a great many characteristics and traits of successful generals who in their own rights overcame significant obstacles to secure a place at the table.

This rates as one of the most interesting threads I think we've had, with a great deal of timeless substance to return to time and again.

Best to all, Rob