[hecht]

but in the end he lost to Scipio, and was unable to get the Italian city states to side with him - or get the Macedonians to join him.
Perhaps he was a greater tactician than strategist,

[allmendream]

Well, much like Lee, Hannibal Barca was fighting a losing battle that had little to do with his battlefield performance and much more to do with the geo-political situation. He was a great strategist, as well as a tactician, but winning for sixteen years in Italy did little more than delay the eventual domination of Carthage by Rome, a situation which he had little ultimate control over.

Yes, he certainly lost to Publius Scipio “Africanus”, and that was his big problem, he couldn't afford to lose a battle, while the Romans could lose several in a row and then turn around and raise the largest army they ever assembled.

So, do you get more credit for winning, even if your army had a supreme military advantage (the Mongols under Ghengis Khan come to mind): or for doing more with less?

For my money, doing more with less is the mark of a good General. Nobody did more with less against a mightier foe than Hannibal. IMHO. That is why I rate him #1.