only a few. It is perhaps fairer to evaluate Hannibal's generalship in terms of the challenges he faced, of the objectives he fought for, and how close he came to overcoming the first and achieving the second.
It may also be more appropriate to regard the question of Hannibal's generalship not as a single question having a single global answer, but as a question that may be asked on several levels, with varying answers that may then be combined into an overall evaluation. The three main levels that may be considered are the levels of tactics, of military strategy, and of grand strategy, or politico-military strategy. Other aspects of generalship, such as logistical skill or the leadership of men, may be treated under these headings, since their effects show themselves on one or more of those three levels.
On the level of tactics, Hannibal's generalship can hardly be in doubt. Tactics, broadly speaking, is the art of winning battles, and Hannibal won most of his important ones, often in a devastatingly one-sided way. He did lose at Zama, however, and as close-fought as that battle may have been, it's final outcome was as decisive in a purely tactical sense as Cannae: Hannibal's army was eliminated as a fighting force.
Yet Zama was close-fought. Moreover, Hannibal was up against Scipio Africanus, as brilliant a general as any Rome ever produced. The Roman army was a sargeant's army, not a general's army; the Romans won their empire more by the reliability of their troops and the excellence of their general military doctrine than by the brilliance of their generals. But it was precisely the challenge of dealing with Hannibal that brought a Scipio to the fore. In fighting Hannibal, the problem faced by the Romans was not so much the shortcomings of their generals, and less still the shortcomings of their army, but Hannibal himself, an exceptional crafty and dangerous enemy.
However much Polybius and Livy found...