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,
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.