The Roman Generals Tier List 

The chad Agrippa fan.

Belisarius is the reason Justinian is now called by many "Justinian the Great". I'd argue he was just as important to Justinian as Agrippa was to Augustus. Easy S tier for me, between Aurelian and Scipio Africanus.

Belisarius did with so little resources and men what many of the A tier would’ve needed three or more times his numbers to accomplish. He was sabotaged often by his subordinates. I generally agree with your list, especially S tier placement, but I believe Belisarius deserved a placement somewhere in S.

Belisarius deserves an S, the enemies he fought were more dangerous than even what Caesar fought. The Sassanids and Germanics aren't the barbarians they once were and we're just as well equipped as the Byzantines. Not to mention he was constantly outnumbered. He won through superiors generalship not through the discipline of the legions or sheer numbers. The Byzantine army was mutinous and was diminished compared to it's predecessor.

Bibulus. Bibulus tier. Let Caesar's entire army slip through his naval blocade because he didn't figure out the calendar was off by 3 months.

Personally I have Belissarius in S tier for he won battle after battle with almost no man power. As for Agrippa well to be honest I may not have him above Caesar but still S tier for he was unbeaten in his career and he bested the best after civil war generals and made look easy which is to show how badass he was

No Labienus? I would put him at least at B tier due to his victories in Gaul, but knocking himself down a peg due to battles like Munda.

I agree with most of your list, but i would have put Camillus in S tier. He lead Romes first territorial expansion with the capture of Veii, he helped rebuild the city after the sack by the Gauls, and then continued to fend of the city's neighbouring enemies. Sure, we don't know much about him and this could all be legends, but you don't get appointed dictator 5 times and get called the "second founder of Rome" for nothing. Edit: Also you should do another tier list for Romes enemies. Generals and foreign leaders like Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Mithridates, Arminius, Boudicca, Shapur, Zenobia, Alaric, Genseric and Attila to name a few.

Source: Dovahhatty

Come on Bellisarius is easily an S tier, the duo Bellisarius/Justnian is basically a remake of the duo Agrippa/Octavian. You can't say his achievement was biased because of propaganda. If you say that, what about Caesar himself? Bellisarius managed to achieve great thing, during his reconquest of Italy and north Africa beside having shit generals by his side who undermined his authority. He was easily the best general of this time. It's disrespectful to put Fabius above him, Fabius whose strategy was to not fight Hannibal because he wasn't strong to face Hannibal even if he had a larger army. Now he was right but that didn't make him a great general ,he did nothing except avoid the fight. As for Anthony I would put him in C tier. He made great thing at Alesia, and duribg the battle of philippi he basically carried the ceasarian faction, he did all the job. For the expedtion in Parthia, he made mistake with the logistic and supplies. However Octavian didn't gave him his legion so he had to rely on a a smaller roman army and other auxiliary who wasn't trained as the roman army. Also the alliance network that Roma had with the middle east sucked and the armenians made shaddy things. So there were things that were beyond his control during his expedition. As for Actium battle, well Cleopatra undermined his leadership, It's not that she was bad but it didn't help him, beside Agrippa was now an a great general and admiral. As for Agrippa, I can't put him above Caesar however I can't disagree with your reasonning behind your choice.

Anthony was not a bad general. He personally won battles by himself against Caesars assassins. I’d also put Belisarius S tier he was better than Trajan but this was 400 years after his time. Military strategy has advanced and Belisarius was god at 6th century military strategy.

Didn't Vespasian initially make a name for himself as a capable general during Claudius' Invasion of Britain tho?

belisarius S tier becasue he managed to re-conquer africa and italy, most of the time under serious situations and under idiotic companions.

I can refute your placement of Africanus with one word - Hannibal! No other Roman general ever faced and totally defeated such a formidable opponent.

There should be a Netflix show about Flavius Aetius

Nothing better than Augustus and Agrippa Wombo Combo

Belisarius is an easy S

A man like Caesar wasn’t just the best military mind of his generation, he was the best military mind of many generations before and after. Extremely brilliant.

Germanicus was such a good general, he was one of the most popular people in Rome, how is he so low, and same with Tiberius. I think Tiberius should be higher than Agrippa since Tiberius’s campaigns were much harder

Antony is C tier purely because of his Parthia campaign. Although he was lured into a trap by Armenia and forced to retreat, he was able to retreat through the lower Caucasus with 25k casualties out of the initial 100k invasion. His dependency on Cleopatra and his defensive mindset however were a detriment at Actium. Fabian and Marius should be dropped to high B and mid A respectively. They are great military theorists and army reformers, but I value the application and adaptation of these theories a lot more, something that Scipio, Caesar and Agrippa proved. Constantine is mid A tier for best applying Diocletian's military reforms, and introducing the magister militum and feodoratti reforms. Belisarius is either top of A tier or S tier, for being one of the few magister militums to live a full life, and for conquering North Africa and Italy with just 30000 men. The rest of the list I agree with.

Heraclius deafeated phocas and persia and you said: he was good until the persian came and the persian broke it. But he won the war in persia. Btw after the win in persia the sassanids and civil war broke. And im also subscribed. But heraclius was even called: Heraclius the Scipio. So i think he deserved S Obove Africanus

Nah in my book Marcus Agrippa would've taken something like 4th or 5th position, and I think that he did in fact lose one of the naval battles against Sextus Pompey, can't remember the name. Anyway, to me Aurelian would be 1st due to his circumstances and giving the empire another 200 years or life, Caesar for his pragmatism and logistical capability, Scipio's victory over Hannibal (arguably best general of antiquity) is enough to ensure 3rd place, 4th would go to either Agrippa or Marius.

10:08 You do realize that Sertorius twice defeated Pompeius in major battles, right?

This tier template was missing the rest of the tetrarchy for their skills as generals. Diocletian, Maximian and Constantius I Chlorus were all important Illyrian soldier emperors besides Galerius.

Do a roman historian tier list. Like the best documenters of Roman history from Roman times

Marcus Agrippa confirmed under rated

Constantine is definitely an S tier or Top A tier he did what most 3rd century emperors dreamed for

Noticed that Ricimer and Orestes were missing.

Where is my man Titus? And since you include M. Aurelius, you should include Caesar Octavian who also fought battles against Brutus and Anthony

Great video. I love it but it's missing some good generals I think should have been included like: drusus (brother of tiberius), Aulus plautius ( conquest of Britaina), Corbulo, Gaius paulinus ( boudicca), Lusius quietus ( second Jewish war), Avidius cassius, Constantius chlorus, Constantius II, Theodosius the elder and Constantius III.

I personally think Pompey barely deserves a B tier. The only reason he was successful early on was because The Senate gave him so many legions that made it impossible for him to lose(even though Sertorious handed his ass to him a couple times). His wars against eastern kingdoms like Pontus and Armenia and what not were successful because Lucullus had already done the hard part of beating Mithridates and Tigranes. Pompey was a better politician than a general. Constantine definitely deserves a better position than Trajan, and Belisarius a hundred percent deserves an A tier considering he had probably the harder task than any of the generals in the video. I'd put Antony in C(he shined under Caesar) and Crassus in B(was decisive in saving Rome from Spartacus). I'd also put Lucullus in the high A or low S. The biggest objection I have with this list is Pompey and Constantine. The rest would just need small tweaks if I were to do it. Nice video!

"God gave him just a plate of Ls man, told him to deal with it" This is the nuanced discussion of Roman History I am here for. Best part? Can't even disagree with that statement about Heraclius.

Putting Agrippa as Number-1 on the S-Tier is an Objective-Choice.

Constantine is a S for me,he reconquered Lower Germania and Dacia.He,also,forced the Germanic tribes and the Sarmatians to pay tribute to him,due to his victories over them.If only he had campaigned against the Persians and won,he would have surely being first.

Top 6: 6 Agrippa 5 Belisarius 4 Caesar 3 Aurelianus (The top 2 never lost a battle) 2 Publius Scipio (3rd-2nd century BC) 1 Constantinus

It's tough for me to rate Agrippa over Caesar. So I can agree that Agrippa was the more complete general. But Caesar was indomitable and did all kinds of astounding things over such a long time period. It's like there are segments of his military career, long ones, in between his more political years. Also frankly I don't see Agrippa having faced an opponent like Pompey or Labienus, and having to crawl up from the ashes of defeat to win. Also between the two of them Caesar was the master of mind games. He used positioning, logistics and brilliant mind games to subdue the legions in Spain at Ilerda. In other ways I want to rank them a tie. Because Agrippa was capable of asymmetrical warfare. Because he was a genius who could centralize and decentralize his army to suit his needs. And Caesar did impressive things as a naval commander, but Agrippa was an overwhelming admiral, someone who deserves to be in the same sentence as admiral Yi of Korea, his victories could be that lopsided.

I'd rank Constantine S tier. He, along with Scipio are the only Romans to NEVER lose a single battle, despite him being outnumbered most of the time. According to Julian (who by the way disliked Constantine due to his conversion to Christianity, so I doubt he'd lie about him to make him look better), he recovered all of Dacia that was taken by Trajan two centuries ago, and some archeological evidence makes his claim look valid.

Surprised you didn’t have Labienus in the tier list. He was Caesar’s right hand man and helped Caesar out, especially in his Gallic Campaign. He even had minor successes in the First Roman Civil War against Caesar. Then he lost at Munda but he did his best. I would rank him easy A Tier above Sulla but below Fabius for me.

This is why Crassus disliked this video : 9:44

Your designation of Fabius is a curious outlier. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of the Fabian strategy, but the fact remains that his whole deal was that he... didn't do anything. While Majorian, Aetius, Constantine etc. reclaimed entire chunks of the empire, broke the Huns, beat multiple armies of fellow Romans respectively. You're telling me that's inferior to a guy that just harassed foraging parties? I mean, Crassus and Antony had more success than him. Other than that, fair enough. Julian at C seems savage until you remember that he burned his entire fleet and supplies. What a dope, after showing such promise.

1.what about anthonys victory at phillipi, one of the biggest battles in roman history? 2. what about his part at the siege of gergovia? i would have never placed lepidus over antony

Gee, it's a good thing Antony never fought those Parthians. Can you imagine? And good thing Constantine never fought any foreign battles... He must've picked up all that Dacicus, Alamennicus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Gothicus Maximus at Walmart. Stilicho is above Constantine? Aetius above Stilicho? It's like these RU-vid channels don't really know much about these historical figures. Who doesn't know about Antony in Parthia? Was Trajan really that great of a general? He won a punitive campaign before becoming emperor. Once you're emperor, you're not really a general anymore, even if you go on campaigns. His Dacian wars don't seem to be necessarily well fought, but rather won by throwing endless numbers of soldiers at a problem. He did the same in Parthia. I guess he wins for logistics, because his armies were so huge, it took talent just to feed them. Procopius was not Belisarius's propaganda writer. He was his secretary. He wrote a propaganda book about Justinian's buildings. He also wrote a book criticizing Justinian and Belisarius, and a bunch of others.

Where is my boi Odonaethus, saviour of the East?

No love for my boy Cincinnaticus?

Theodosius is overrated not gonna lie. He lucked his way out of a defeat by arbogaust, and he never beat the goths in the field. He isn’t awful but I think he should be d or c tier

23:19 come on you can't forget the battle of satala, where galerius literally sneak into the persian camp disguised as a peasant selling food to gain intel on persian positions, then attacked and pulled off a stunning victory!

Hey man just want to say I really enjoy watching your videos. Your opinion, and facts, on the characters in the tier list videos are hilarious and fascinating.

I'm sad to not see labienus in the tier list. If Caesar is in S tier then labienus deserves to either be behind Caesar or above him. Without labienus, Caesar would have never held for long in Gaul.

Bro i am crying and imploring you ! Make Sulla S tier. Man was a fucking G

Agrippa and beliisarius are very similar characters both s tier in my opinion both had the backing of political masterminds to back them up and handle the politics. Also I'd say caesar was the best due to have very little support from the Roman state itself he used his political wits to squeeze whatever resources he could and pulled masterful victories with little to no support from rome and the senators in this respect aurelian was similar with not having access to the resources of empire and proving to be legendary as well, So I'd say S tier goes Caesar, Aurelian , Belisarius, Agrippa

Caesar is a tiger, Aurelian a lion then Agrippa is a jaguar.

FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!! FABIAN TACTICS !!!

Duuude did you not hear about the battle of Satala? Galerius infiltrated the camp of the Sassanids and crushing their army. The spoil of war where so great it became a logistic problem to get it all in roman territory! He also sacked the Sassanid capitol of Tcestephon. Below Tiberius and Vespasian? What?!

For anyone listening: this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. Flavius means Fabian-whose tactics are still studied today.

Pompey should be B.

Quintilius Varus was actually a good general and had multiple battles won in the Pannonian regions, Germanic and Gallic regions. Just because he lost a huge battle (where multiple factors driving him to lose) in the Teutoburg forest doesn’t make his other resume bad. E or D would to respectable.

Personally i think Vespasian should be the last B, Because Titus was the one who ended the first jewish war if i'm honest

Good video pal. I think your tier list is very fair. Keep it up.

Crassus was a rich prick who thought barley beating a slave revolt meant he was on par with Alexander but ended up eating molten gold. If he lost to Spartacus then Pompey would've mopped up his mess and his invasion of Parthia probably wouldn't have happened.

Antony did have an invasion in Parthia, he took a huge L and limped himself all the way home through Armenia. But he did learn (little) from Crassus’ defeat though

If you wanted to be Emperor of Rome ,you needed to be a Roman General first.

Pompey gave himself the Maguns. Ever know a guy that gives HIMSELF a Nickname, yeah, they're Jerks.

what about my main man cincinatus? there when you needed him and left when the job was done.

I don't know if he qualifies, but I would've liked to see Titus Labienus on the tier list.

My favourite general is still Scipio Africanus but damn I kinda forgot how much of a chad Marcus Agrippa was.

With respect, I don't think You know about Roman History!! Also, Marcus Claudius Marcellus the only Roman to earn the Spolia Opima yet somehow not on here.... Plus; Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Marcus Valerius Corvus, Lucius Papirius Cursor, Publius Valerius Poplicola, and Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus, should be on here.... Either S, A, B, or C tier for each of them.

Narses bassically anihilated the enemy army THREE TIMES, and secured Roman presense in Italy for the next decades, becoming the Hammer of the Goths the Hammer of the Empire, he deserves an A for sure, and Belisarius deserves an S

Less wars is sometimes a sign of strength, in that your opponents may know you are too unified/strong to tackle. Such may be the case with Constantine

omg i love this AHHH

I would put Africanus above caesar if only because, Cesar DID lost many battles, none decisive ones, he made a comeback right after them but he still lost in the first place, Africanus never ever lost a battle from a tactical point of view unlike Caesar.

I appreciate that everyone's name is written underneath their pictures More ranking videos please, only no music next time please. It distracts from your otherwise great video.

Fabius is too high on your list.. if all he did was “not attack” someone.. that doesn’t make someone A or S. Id put Fabius at B. No way is someone who didn’t fight above Camillus who’s literally the second founder of Rome. Edit: bro how do you have Fabius higher then Trajan.. higher then Vespasian.. higher then Agricola … and Constantine the great !? What are you smoking 😳😂😂🤦‍♂️

I'd put heraclius in s tier, Heraclius saved the byzantine empire from total collpase, with 1 army he dealt with both avars and sassanids, I would like to point out that if Heraclius lost at any point vs sassanids and avars it would be the end of the roman empire. He was dealt the absolute owrst hand in history he pulled through, if he died earlier before the arab invasions he would've been remembered as one of the greatest in history, and losing to arabs wasn't even his fault he quite literally used everything at his disposal to save the empire and had nothing left against the arabs

Varus! How? Quintillus Varus, GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!

Why is Flavius so high ?? The guy didn't win great battles, he just had a good strategy ( a strategy that, mind me, didn't work as well as you make it seem ), that isn't enough to put him above Trajan; Heraclius; Pompey; Belisarius and many others... What about initiative ? Command range/effectiveness in battle ? Rallying ability ? Formation maneuvering like line movements or manipular extensions ? Even creativity ? Bro, I say this with a lot of respect because your videos are pretty good and you know a lot about Rome, but you are talking statistics and its really dubious to be evaluating generals on such a basis. You are just saying "W" and "L", and you don't really seem to have a clue. This is military history, and in military history you need to know about actual military, not just history...

Marius's reforms were responsible for the downfall of the Republic & eventually the empire (because he made it so that legions were loyal to their generals rather than to Rome...led to many civil wars during the Empire). Marius, who was probably senile by then, even organized a coup to put himself consul (for the 7th time, when the law stated that you could only be a consul 1 time) while Sulla was bravely fighting Mithridates. Putting him anywhere other than F tier is an insult to the integrity of the Republic. Sulla saw what was wrong with the Republic & tried fixing it, putting in place better reforms (ex: limiting a general's command of a legion to only 1 year, to avoid legions being loyal to the general), that were unfortunately reversed by the senate after he died...Also, dictator for life? I think you are confusing him with the tyrant Caesar. Sulla was only dictator for a year, then graciously stepped down when his work was done. S tier. Unlike Caesar, who was a power-hungry criminal, a traitor and a tyrant, no better than a common bandit. Ultimately it was because of him and his senile uncle Marius that the Republic fell. I guess power lust runs in the family. F tier. Finally, Pompey should be S tier!! 😤😤 He managed to conquer the east when no one else could (Lucullus even failed) and expanded Rome and gave them the wealthy eastern provinces. Only lost at Pharsalus due to sheer bad luck (due to Bibulus, Cato and Ahenobarbarus). BTW, he defeated Caesar at Dyrrachium!!!! but I see you conveniently left that out. Not to mention the number of times Pompey single-handedly saved Rome while Caesar was doing nothing in Gaul. Pompey ended the Lepidus revolt (78 bc) & ended the war against Spartacus (despite what that moron Crassus might claim...why don't you go deploy in a square formation Crassus i'm sure that will work for you) And where is Boat King Sextus Pompey!??

I really agree with Gallienus' placement but I would've put him a bit higher in b-tier. For the other generals I agree, especially Agrippa. Without Agrippa, the Roman empire would've either never existed, or been harder to establish since Augustus wasn't a commander

Heraclius had 20k Vs 150k and he is not in S there were like 3 armies that were double his size in one campaign and he was supposed to defend in the Armenian mountains and instead he attacked them all separately

You got the picture of the wrong Varro

Yeah, I pretty much agree with your list.

I find your assessment of Antony interesting. I think he deserves credit for Philippi even if in the end he was facing off against the completely inexperienced Brutus. I also don't know what you mean by he was gonna wage a Parthian campaign. He did, and it was almost as bad as Crassus'. He let the Parthian army confiscate all of the supplies Cleopatra had given him as they were being taken through Armenia. And no, the Armenian king did not betray him, that was just Antony making excuses. Then he had to go back through Armenia with no food or supplies all while being chased by the Parthians. It's a miracle and a half that he survived. Also... Actium. I think fighting by sea was the right choice unlike most people, and who knows wtf Cleopatra was doing in that battle. But to flee from the battlefield and then lose 70,000 soldiers to defection? Major, major stain on his record.

def disagree with your placements of mark antony and lepidus, def overshadowed by caeser, i'd argue they're both atleast B tier. Also weird how you forgot about labienus

I think the fact that Scipio beat Hannibal puts him higher than anybody despite the circumstances. Caesar, Alexander no one faced anyone at Hannibals level

For me Julius Caesar is the best. he not only conquered a shit ton of territory but he defeated so many different opponents like the gauls with vercingetorix, Romans like pompey and labienus, he fought in britain, north africa, and against mithridates son (I cam I saw I concoured) but most important he was just such a genius in the battlefield

I am not sure why Stilicho and Aetius are rated so low. Please do not get me wrong here, I know this is your list and you're fully entitled to have the list as you see the Roman World. However, when you factor in what the Aetius and Stilicho did for a crumbling Western Roman Empire, I would place them right up there at the top. Specifically Aetius managed to pull together a very much fragmented Roman Empire and hold it together for around 20 years. The defeat of Attila should not be underestimated considering what would have, likely, happened had Attila won. Granted, the future Emperor Avitus deserves credit for being able to bring a vast coalition of different groups together under the banner of the Roman Army. It still took immense leadership to stop the horde of Attila. This was a guy who had managed to bully fortified cities all across the Roman Empire and clearly had learned from the many Roman individuals within the imperial court of Attila, likely having learned some things from Aetius himself. There just seems to be this tendency to ignore the Late Western Roman Generals due to the time period having been perceived to be a bad time for the Roman Empire. The period of the Pax Romana gets deserved credit for its territorial expansions but I have often looked at the later emperors and leaders as being better in some aspects. When the empire is on its knees it would have been very easy for lesser skilled men to just allow the empire to collapse, but it shows the true skills and mindset of the likes of Aetius that he kept the tide of collapse at bay for so long. Stilicho too, rushing from one crisis to the next and as what most people would agree with, he could have raised the flag of rebellion and avoided being assassinated. He had the backing of the barbarian elements of the army, which comprised a huge amount of the army during his time, he had the evident skills that was clearly lacking across the empire at this time. However, poor Stilicho told his men to stand down and not raise the flag of revolt. I do think the heart of Stilicho was broken by being declared an enemy of the state. He had spent his life piercing gaps across the empire and offering his advice to the young emperors. Theodosius the Great trusted Stilicho more than anyone else and yet his children, specifically Honorius (worst emperor of all time for many reasons) stabbed him in the back. Belisarius is probably considered by many to be the greatest Roman General of all time, the fact he was able to take back the lost imperial territories with a small force is a testament to his skill. He was also not your average general, he was intelligent too. He used an approach while retaking the lost lands by telling his men to be very kind to the civilians, and this approach led him to gain cities without having to get his hands dirty. Cities were often opening their gates to his forces because they seen how decently he was treating other cities. He was another general who could have raised the flag of revolt due to the way he was constantly backstabbed by men from within his own camp. Even when Justinian tried to trick him into declaring his revolt, he did not, and he continued to obey Justinian. You do say Procopius was his propaganda machine and that is not unfair to say. However, you should have a go at his later works and his treatment of Belisarius in those. It is forming the basis of my Ph.D. They are really cool and interesting to read. Lastly, I see the list includes the colossal Belisarius and Narses, among other Eastern Roman Generals. I might be the only one here but I would have others included too. Specifically a Genoese man called Giovanni Giustiniani Longo. When the last bastion of the Roman Empire fought of the Ottoman Empire during the Siege of Constantinople n 1453, Giovanni Giustiniani Longo fought like a lion to protect the empire, so too did Constantine XI Palaiologos. The last Roman Emperor went out with a roar alongside Giovanni, George Sphrantzes (his long time and utterly loyal best friend), among others. Despite the efforts of a recent series, available online, to taint the name of Giovanni Giustiniani Longo, he had ample opportunities to flee Constantinople and abandon the empire he came to save but he did not. As the eyewitness historian wrote about his arrival to the city, when he arrived with 700 professional soldiers paid for by himself. ‘On that day, came to Constantinople Giovanni Giustiniani, the Genoese ... because he had taken notice of Constantinople's need, for the benefit of Christendom and for worldly honor.’ Niccolò Barbaro. As I said, I realise this is your list and not mine, I just wanted to add my opinion to the comments. If anyone would like to discuss the list further I do stream and I run a blog online. Roma Victor! For the glory of the empire, sire.

isn’t that picture of varro a different varro?

In fact, Julius Caesar was ranked as the fourth greatest general and commander in human history because he had 23 victories, more even than Alexander the Great.

how abougt labienus or diocletian? dont know much of agrippa so i dont understand your apraisal of him.

Caesar was a great administrator in terms of being a general. His tactical ability was great, but not close to Scipio

Where's my boy Labienus??

Where tf is Nikephoros 2nd and Basil the Based

My only question WTF is cincinatus?

Ill put heraclius, belisarius and trajan in s tier Julian to A tier and Constantine to B tier

Cæsar was a Patrician of the Patricians. Agrippa was not. So...

Ay Agrippa had more to work with than Caesar tho

I think julian was A tier simply because I view the effectiveness differently IE I dont really look at how they played a role to get themselves in a situation but instead how they handled it for example what if war with Persia was inevitable or someone else had started it how well did they perform, with how much resources and backing. Only because we are talking about generals here a good emperor must be excellent at diplomacy and statesmanship as well but with generals I count primarily tactics and secondarily strategy and leave it at that

S tier for majorian

Napoleon is overratef but to compare julius, zizka, yii and subutai would be interesting.

where is basil the bulgar slayer

Sulla should be S tier he’s possibly the best Roman commander.