Oh, bloody hell.
I forgot to add the Honourable Mention -- who might actually well deserve a spot on the list, perhaps instead of Moltke:
Leon Trotsky.
That depends on how you define 'great' - does 'great' mean rolling over and trying to skip off to paradise - or failing at your mission due to your inability or stubborness?
I hardly would considering Trotsky for the honor - though, while *actually being General* he was good, like all the others - in the end he merely murdered after having skipped off to Mexico.
Great? Hardly.
Napoleon - though he didn't stay within the roll up to his moment of death he at least held the honor of many men who were with him in his final days.
But what good did he actually do for his country? None, really - all his gains and efforts were quickly ceded and buffered out.
Not to mention that he actually abandoned his troops in N Africa.
Same thing with Zhukov - he was ousted and thus some of his gains were lost - thus nullifying any possible greatness he would have had in his pocket. You can't be 'great' if your efforts were undone post-action by your successor within your own army.
Sir Arthur Wellesly - He's a potential 'great' - unlike Napoleon he didn't simply flitter off into nothingdom and failure. Some of his efforts post-war were promising and remained in effect for quite some time. Though he didn't demand the notariety of Napoleon as general, he did have a positive effect on France as Prime Minister - though, albeit, he couldn't rally everyon behind the Reform Act. But you can't have everything when it comes to politics.
Alexander the Great - unfortunately when it comes to historic figures that date so far back there's no solid way of knowing fact from fiction - 'would be great' maybe if the accounts of him are true. But the Greeks had a terrible habit of overindulgence and all sorts of puffery. if the stories are true - then he most certainly pissed a lot of people off, his soldiers even mutinied - does that make him Great?
Maybe a Great ass.
But many of his actions were positive for his country so by that perhaps he redeems himself. - Tough call, he's a maybe.
Ghenghis Khan - His actions did stick, unlike those of others. At the end of all his efforts the land-fair of china had increased significantly which was a positive for him. He also was keen on understanding his enemy in order to choose the best course of actions. Obviously this was a strong advantage for him and made him quite the power. Of course, he also made his way to the top with conspiracies galore - but that's common. Does his good outweigh his bad? I think it does, for him. He also spread his empire over a vast area equal to that of which various european countries have staked a claim to - impressive indeed.
Alexander Suvorov - for some reason I actually don't know a lot about him. I'll have to read up before making an opinion.
Julius Caesar - His actions post captivity are pure gold. Almost unbelievable - maybe it didn't happen quite that way. But if it did then the man's a genius in his own precious way. Though technically he was a dictator - he sucked at politics but was handy at warfare. If he only stuck with what he was good at he would have benefited Rome more.
Helmuth von Moltke - which one, elder or his nephew? Moltke the Elder - so-so in his commanding power. I think he saw himself as more of a statemen than a solid leader he went here and there - did some time with the Turks and trekked down to Africa and tinkered a bit. Moltke the Younger during WWI, though, was not what I'd consider a strong leader. In fact, he foiled the Schleifen plan which led to Germany's ultimate defeat in the end. . . Good for us on a 'who won' level - but purely keeping in the question of 'was he good for his country' I believe he most certain was a disaster.
Oliver Cromwell - Yes, great - his innovations and changes to the function and tactics of the military were quite revolutionary at the time and is an excellent example of brain over bronze. He was great until he lost his mind in the end (yes - I'm equating his biblical lovery to being insane)
Charlemagne - He was crafty and highly respected, even among some of his enemies. This odd respect functioned to merely give things over to him - warfare wasn't always necessary. I think he was more successful because of this and other non-warfaring factors. But of cousre he wouldn't have been so highly valued if he wasn't good at waging war in the first place.
So - I actually will go with Charlemagne. The fact that he didn't always have to resort to tactics of warfare, fear, dominance and control in order to expand and conquer is unsurpassed. He's truly unique in that fashion. Yeah, sure - others have had similar success but none to the scope and scale of his.