Short answer:

"Greatest generals of all time" isn't something that academic historians concern themselves too much with.

Discussion:

"The Great Captains" are part of a narrative tradition that's as much literary art as historical inquiry. "The Great Men" style of historical storytelling has an appeal that goes back to antiquity, but it's not a terribly useful way to understand warfare. It is studied for historiographical purposes -- eg "when we construct the story of the Punic Wars, what does personalizing Carthage to one man, Hannibal, do to our picture of the war ?" And similarly "Why did people choose to tell the story this way, and what does it obscure?"

You can still find some writing of this kind, but it's not how academic historians approach the military. Far more important than any particular German general was Germany's system for producing generals -- and indeed, for producing noncommissioned officers. So a historian like Omer Bartov, writing "Hitler's Army [OUP 1992]" -- he's not engaging in debates about Rommel or von Manstein; he's trying to understand how the Wehrmacht worked as an institution. And service historians don't tell the story this way either- if you look at official unit histories, the personalities of commanders are much subdued, they're far more devoted to the unit as an institution.

With respect to Dodge, he wrote largely from secondary sources, and he wrote well enough, for his time. But what he did isn't what contemporary academic historians do, for the most part.

So, for example, contemporary historians of the Roman Army have worked very hard to try to calculate the numbers of recruits and casualty rates, in works like

Rosenstein,Nathan. "Rome at war: farms, families, and death in the Middle Republic", (UNC Press: 2004)

Scheidel, Walter. Marriage, families, and survival in the Roman imperial army: demographic aspects in Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, online, November 2005

Similarly, historians studying Alexander the Great have devoted far more attention to the military institution built by Philip, see for example George Cawkwell's "Philip of Macedon".

Likely the most influential military historical work of the last fifty years has been Michael Roberts and Geoffrey Parker's "The Military Revolution". This isn't about "Great Captains" -- it's about militaries as social organizations adopting and employing new technologies. In this schema, men like Maurice of Nassau and George Marshall figure more prominently than better known figures.

For some examples of the way contemporary historians write about military topics, see:

Sources:

Agoston G (2014) :Firearms and military adaptation: The Ottomans and the European military revolution, 1450–1800." Journal of World History 25#1: 85–124.

Andrade T. The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation and the Rise of the West in World History (Princeton UP, 2016).

Duffy, Michael. The Military Revolution and the State 1500–1800 (1980)

Hale, J. R., "The Military Reformation", in War and Society in Renaissance Europe (London,1985)

Hoffman, Philip. 2011. "Prices, the military revolution, and western Europe's comparative advantage in violence." The Economic History Review.

McNeill, William H. The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force and Society since AD 1000 (Chicago, 1982)

Parker, Geoffrey. "Military Revolutions, Past and Present" in Recent Themes in Military History. Ed. Donald A Yerxa. (U of South Carolina Press, 2008)

Parrott, David A. "The Military revolution in Early Modern Europe", History Today, 42 (1992)