I can accept those words.
But I tend to see in truly great commanders the ability to transcend the limitations of their traditions and to adapt, and to get others to follow them.
Of course, it is easier with kings than with generals in a Republic. An Alexander not only commanded armies, but he commanded the treasury and everything else. No general or admiral of any fame of the modern day commands the country itself which supports him.
I think that if one does not apply the strict victory criteria I used: win every battle and grand strategic campaign too, and if one allows for many, many defeats but accounts for the odds faced, then the greatest general of the 20th Century becomes obvious once one sees the name: General Giap.
He won a decisive, strategic victory against the United States of America and its Pacific allies. A bunch of half-armed men in pajamas defeated a superpower and a dozen other powers as well (Australia and Thailand, South Vietnam). And HE didn't win one battle in the field, so poor was his army.
But he won the war.
Brilliantly.
A grand strategic victory.
And then he blocked out the Chinese too.
Now, by those criteria, we get a very different list.
By those criteria, the greatest American general, hands down, was George Washington. He didn't win all, or even most, of his battles. But he was fighting a superpower with militia. And he won a grand strategic victory in the end, and a continent. Washington faced far worse odds, and a far more powerful foe, relatively, than Robert E. Lee did. But Washington won, against the worst odds ever faced by America, in any war.
Washington and Giap stand on the same plane, in that regard. They both humiliated a superpower, by fighting in the field. Washington at least won the final battles. Giap didn't win any major engagements, in the sense that he did not ever remain in possession of the field. But his Fabian tactics left him in possession of the WHOLE field at the end of it all. Not bad for a guy in pajamas!
You know, you just picked two men who I would have picked, Washington is a given for all the reasons you list.
I also agree with you about Giap, he never won, but he did gain time for the enemies of America to do their work back home, thereby snatching political victory, in spite of overwhelming military "defeats", about which, as a Vietnam vet, I have some difficulty being "objective".
Because, we must learn that lesson from the Vietnam WAR, Military Victory is NOT enought! We have to win the political WAR also.
As we can see right now, by how the enemies of America including the democRAT party are working overtime to deny any victory to us. (Those vile scum suckers).
Too bad for them, we REMEMBER history.
I agree that Giap deserves to be mentioned. It was his method that ultimately won the strategic victory, even if he did get removed from active command after Tet '68. Some would say that he overreached there and departed from his 'game plan'.