Not so. He established the Cabinet system and recruited the best men for the jobs (an all-star Cabinet incl. Jefferson, Hamilton, Knox, etc.), adroitly upheld American neutrality during the Anglo-French wars, appointed the entire Federal judiciary, gained approval for the construction of six excellent frigates as the foundation of the U.S. Navy, backed Hamilton’s reform plans which set the infant republic on sound economic and fiscal footing, put down the Whiskey Rebellion and then pardoned its leaders, saw to the establishment of the Federal City that would later bear his name, etc. He toured every state and knit the country together by his example of character and leadership. Washington got a lot done in eight years as President.
4 - Ataturk: not in the same league as the others.
3 - Alexander: his empire fragmented on his death.
3 - Bismarck: he was the power behind the throne rather than the one on it.
And I agree about Washington - indeed Alfred the Great is very much his Dark Age cognate.
Two newcomers for me this time around:
Alfred the Great – 5
Tamerlane – 5
I still have four nominees left – Whoopee! But two of mine are now being targetted. 
Influential is not the same as great, but anyway I would argue Alfred was * both*. Yes the Danes controlled more of England than Alfred did, but the English speak English don’t they? If one man deserves primary credit for the English speaking English, that man is King Alfred the Great. And not only did his deeds prevent Danish from taking over, the proud memory of this great English hero may have helped prevent French from becoming the national language and culture after 1066.
Alfred was a genuine scholar, a great warrior, and a shrewd and charismatic leader. He was a true Unifier: before Alfred one reads of Kings of Wessex, Kings of Kent, Kings of Mercia, etc. After Alfred … Kings of England. The story of Alfred’s survival, and that of England itself, during the darkest hours of war reads like a fairy tale.
It’s easy for me to agree that Alfred was England’s greatest Monarch. I’d like to hear an argument for Elizabeth being 2nd greatest, let alone 1st.
Voting
Tamerlane 4
Saladin 3
Winston Churchill 3 (great during and just before WWII, but Gallipoli was a disaster and his attempt to hang onto the vestiges of the Empire after WWII was both ineffectual and wrongheaded)
Asoka, whose accomplishments were more transitory than most of the others remaining - 5
Muhammad - ditto
I’ll put in a word for Elizabeth I of England. She crafted the Elizabethan Settlement which finally quelled the Protestant-Catholic infighting that had been tearing the country apart. She defended the country against the Spanish Armada and numerous plots. She adroitly used her (purported) virgin status to keep her marriage and dynastic prospects open, and thus preserved English diplomatic options. She sparingly used English troops overseas just as needed, unlike many of her fellow monarchs. She was a patron of the arts, sciences and exploration, giving an entire era of peace and prosperity for her countrymen the very name “the Elizabethan Age.”
I’m a little surprised that transitory accomplishments are being dismissed. I would consider it more impressive if someone managed to hold together a country or empire by sheer force of will than because it was actually stable.
Sorry - late to the thread again. The votes:
Alfred the Great - 10
Tamerlane the (Likewise) Great - 9
Asoka, Muhammad, Washington - 5 each
Ataturk - 4
Alexander, Bismarck, Churchill, Saladin - 3 each
The top two are now gone. That leaves:
Alexander the Great - Macedonian conqueror, emperor
Asoka - Early India leader
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - Modernized, ruled Turkey
Caesar Augustus - Founded Roman Empire
Otto von Bismarck - United German kingdoms
Gaius Julius Caesar - Roman dictator, general
Winston Churchill - British wartime inspiration
Cyrus the Great - Great, benevolent conqueror
Elizabeth I of England - Shrewd, determined queen
Frederick II - Ruled 1700s Prussia
Hammurabi - First written laws
Isabella I of Castille - Unified, developed Spain
Abraham Lincoln - Won Civil War
Muhammad - United all Arabia
Nebuchadnezzar II - Babylon’s greatest ruler
Rameses II - Egypt’s greatest pharaoh
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 32nd American president
Peter the Great - Modernized, expanded Russia
Saladin - Muslim leader, warrior
Qin Shi Huang - Unified China emperor
Umar - Expanded Islamic empire
George Washington - First U.S. president
The current round of voting will end on Fri. June 18 at noon EST.
Same rules as the previous round: ten votes per player, no more than five against any single leader, etc.
Not feeling especially desirous of booting any of the remaining leaders, so I’ll split my vote five ways this time around:
Ataturk – 2
Frederick II --2
Peter the Great – 2
Franklin Delano Roosevelt – 2
Umar --2
Well, I’ll stick with last round’s votes:
Saladin 5
Churchill 5
What’s your beef with Churchill?
Asoka - 5
Muhammad - 5
I too will stick by my earlier choices:
4 - Ataturk: not in the same league as the others.
3 - Alexander: his empire fragmented on his death.
3 - Bismarck: he was the power behind the throne rather than the one on it.
Hmmm…getting tougher to cull…
Isabella - 5. An effective and strong-willed monarch. However the creation of Spain in her lifetime is exaggerated in the particulars - the crowns of Castille and Aragon in particular retained a pronounced dualism, with the adoption of the viceroyalty system hindering the creation of a unitary state. Ferdinand was arguably more important to the union, as he was an active ruler in Castille ( including for eight years after her death as Regent ), while Isabella was only a consort in Aragon. Isabella’s bigotry towards Jews and Muslims was pretty extreme and arguably harmed the country to at least some minor extent. And they inadvertently ( or shortsightedly if you want to be harsher ) made some serious long-term mistakes, as in the promotion of transhumance sheep-raising over farming, which suited the search for immediate revenues ( from wool exports ), but would come back to bite Spain in the ass decades down the line.
Roosevelt - 5. A very important president, whether you embrace the New Deal as successful ( or desirable ) or not. But starting to lose out to other figures here. The importance of the United States in modern history tends to magnify the importance of presidents, but their shorter “reigns” and their lack of hegemonic authority puts them at a disadvantage in competitions like this.
Churchill - as explained above, Gallipoli and his post-WWII tenure as PM.
In fact if I may digress just a little for a moment (hope that’s not against the rules 
), I think the importance of U.S. presidents generally tends to be just a little exaggerated, both in scholarly history and in the popular imagination. While I buy very loosely into the ‘Great Man’ theory of history, I do tend to think that in the case of the U.S. the symbolic position of the Head of State tends to shortchange the importance of congressional history and the impact of legislatures. A Nebuchadnezzar II or a Saladin was far, far, FAR more important to their respective states than a Roosevelt was to the United States.
Which doesn’t necessarily mean they automatically would trump him as a “great national leader” ( though in this case I’d argue that they do ). As I said the U.S. looms so large in recent history that even the short-lived and constrained power of a president can still have enormous historical impact. Nor am I arguing that the U.S. congress usually has an historical importance equal or comparable to a president - as a single executive locus and the usual setter of agendas, the presidency is of course more important.
But I do think presidents get more credit, both positive and negative, than perhaps they should relative to a more dominating authoritarian figure like an Ataturk.
Hmmm. Getting a bit tougher. The votes:
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 7
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - 6
Asoka, Churchill, Isabella, Muhammad, Saladin - 5 each
Alexander the Great, Otto von Bismarck - 3 each
Frederick II, Peter the Great, Umar - 2 each
The top two are now gone. That leaves:
Alexander the Great - Macedonian conqueror, emperor
Asoka - Early India leader
Caesar Augustus - Founded Roman Empire
Otto von Bismarck - United German kingdoms
Gaius Julius Caesar - Roman dictator, general
Winston Churchill - British wartime inspiration
Cyrus the Great - Great, benevolent conqueror
Elizabeth I of England - Shrewd, determined queen
Frederick II - Ruled 1700s Prussia
Hammurabi - First written laws
Isabella I of Castille - Unified, developed Spain
Abraham Lincoln - Won Civil War
Muhammad - United all Arabia
Nebuchadnezzar II - Babylon’s greatest ruler
Rameses II - Egypt’s greatest pharaoh
Peter the Great - Modernized, expanded Russia
Saladin - Muslim leader, warrior
Qin Shi Huang - Unified China emperor
Umar - Expanded Islamic empire
George Washington - First U.S. president
The current round of voting will end on Mon. June 21 at noon EST.
Same rules as the previous round: ten votes per player, no more than five against any single leader, etc.
Hm. Going to change my votes slightly based on Tamerlane’s arguments:
Saladin 4
Churchill 3
Isabella 3 (for the Moors and the Jews).
Ataturk is my second nominee down; I have 3 left, but 2 of them got votes last round.
Same as before:
Asoka - 5
Muhammad - 5
I still have three nominees on the board, too.
3 - Alexander
3 - Asoka
4 - Bismarck
Otto von Bismarck - 5
Elizabeth I of England - 5
(I missed a round. Do I get twice the votes this round? )