I'm still trying to figure out what Scipio, Hannibal, and Shaka are doing amongst the five worst packs.
-The real answer? Think marketing.
In the first few sets, we [the Dev team] felt the same way you guys do. Richard the Lionheart was the man! He has the military exploits of a dozen leaders from his age combined! So, Richard became the bad-ass he is in the game.
Problem is, when you highlight the warrior everyone has heard of, the unknowns don't have much going for them. Unless there's something 'must-have' in the pack, that guy will sit on the store shelf, or in the warehouse - anywhere but bought by non-completionists.
So, we flipped the coin. Every warrior in the game needs something to sell it - the known warriors have name recognition, and the others get a little more attention when it comes to pack synergy, culture shock viability, or completing the other half of combos that already exist.
That isn't to say that we try to make the well-known warriors less awesome, or that we hamstring them and keep them from being powerful cards. Far from it. We do [did], however, use those packs for the more 'out there' ideas, to give new concepts to build decks around, and to give players new to the game some simpler ideas. Shaka and Hannibal, for example, were to be in the starter set, so they needed to be a little bit of a ramp for newer players.
So, there you go. Some insight as to why the most famous warriors are not always the 'best'. Besides, it wouldn't teach you all that much about history if you simply used all the characters you were already familiar with, would it?