Many of the generals of WW1 are well-known. There are the generals who had high-profile leadership roles, and are know for those. There are some generals who are known as skilled and successful generals. There are some generals known mostly for their failure. Then there are generals of local fame, noted for being important generals of the minor countries.

The high-profile leaders include generals such as Haig and French (among the British), Foch, Joffre and Petain (French), and Hindenburg and Ludendorff (Germany), who are well-known, and often severely criticised (not always fairly). Haig and French are famous as the commanders of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Haig, in particular, had a very high profile role, and features very prominently in British histories of the war. He is on the receiving end of criticism and accusations of incompetence for the heavy casualties and small gains in battles such as the Somme and Passchendaele - he is the most famous of the "donkeys" in the description of the British as "lions led by donkeys". Haig's failing was perhaps not weeding out less-than-competent underlings, and giving the commanders beneath him too much freedom to plan their battles their own way. On the positive side, he was quite willing to give the better commanders under him plenty of freedom to plan their battles their own way.

Similarly, all of the French generals are touched by controversy. Foch and Joffre stopped the Germans on the Marne, and are tainted by the heavy casualties at Ypres and the Somme. Petain gains credit for Verdun (and his main demerits are from his WW2 role as the leader of Vichy France). British histories focus more on the British generals, and pay rather less attention to the French generals for other than their impact on British operations.

Hindeburg and Ludendorff are famed for their victory at Tannenberg (helped a lot by the Russian generals involved), but again, are controversial - they lost the war, and Ludendorff was the key actor in the Spring Offensive (the Kaiserschlacht).

Perhaps the best known of the generals famed for their success are Monash (Australia), Currie (Canada), and Brusilov (Russia). Monash and Currie had the advantage of rising to their positions late in the war when much experimentation in tactics had already taken place, and sufficient heavy artillery and munitions were available. They are the two generals most likely to be described as the best of the war in the English-language histories. Brusilov didn't have this advantage, and was hampered by colleagues and subordinates appointed or promoted due to politics and connections rather than competence. Despite this, he successfully shattered the Austro-Hungarian army while Haig and Foch were making less progress at the Somme. Brusilov receives less attention in Western European and American histories than his achievements merit due to (a) fighting on the Eastern front, and (b) Russia's overall poor performance in the war.

Then are generals known mostly for failure. Nivelle (the Nivelle Offensive, which drove the French army to the brink of mutiny), Samsonov (who added loss at Tannenberg to his earlier loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War), Cadorna, and Conrad von Hötzendorf.

Of the generals of the minor countries, the two who get the most exposure in English-language histories are Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk), who stopped the British, French and ANZACs at Gallipoli, and Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force.

British histories emphasise the British generals, and other nations also their own. Of English-language histories, US histories are the most likely to pay the least attention to WW1 generals. The US has a shorter involvement in the war than the British, French, Russians, Germans, Austro-Hungarians, etc., and relatively smaller forces involved in the fighting. Conversely, the very large role played by the US in WW2 quite overshadows their smaller role in WW1. Unsurprisingly, US WW2 generals are better known than US WW1 generals. More generally, even in other countries, WW2 is more prominent historically - it is more recent, and it re-shaped Europe more thoroughly. Relative to the fame of Patton, MacArthur, Montgomery, Zhukov, Rommel, etc., the fame of WW1 generals has had more time to fade. While there were many noteworthy WW1 generals, for good and for ill, they are often not noted.

Australian history is somewhat of an exception in the English-language world, with the role of the ANZACs at Gallipoli, still commemorated by ANZAC Day, very prominent in national memory and history. Gallipoli and fighting in Palestine (notably the charge at Beersheba) feature in post-WW2 movies, and the fame of Monash compete successfully to stay known against the WW2 competition of Kokoda and Blamey.