I think stripping the generals a little more of their historical actions and concentrating more on what made them different would have improved this list and kept it from being little more than very short wiki entries.
For example, Rommel was far more than a Desert General. He was an innovator, a mans-general. He was partly responsible for the heavy defence of Normandy, and had he been given the resources he asked for, things may have been quite different.
My point is not to add that to the entry, but to focus on what made him different from other generals and strip out the WWII events.
Crazy Horse is another example. What made him different from other generals apart from he was an American-Indian? If you dropped him into a medieval setting, how would you tell.
I think this is an excellent list idea, and a lot of work was done, but I think a focus on the personalities would render a far superior submission.
Oh, and Hitler was never a general, as much as he wanted to be. Puling out the political leader types and replacing them with more generals would also improve the sub (No Monty? No Eisenhower? Like them or not, these two had strong personalities which would serve well as archtypes)