Muhammad - 5
Qin Shi Huang - 5
Not in the same league as most of the other remaining leaders, to my knowledge.
Ying Zheng, who became Qin Shi Huang Di (“First Great Emperor of China”) is surely one of the most influential leaders ever to live. The very word “China” comes from the name (“Qin”) of the dynasty he founded. (You can argue that the specific Qin dynasty was short-lived, but so was Washington’s Federalist Party. The First Emperor’s influence extends to the present day.)
His accomplishments, several of which led to long-term stability and prosperity, include:
[ul]
[li]Took power due to his own personal skills[/li][li]Unified China via conquest[/li][li]Converted China from a feudal to Imperial model, with provincial governors selected by merit[/li][li]Standardized Chinese writing, weights and measures, and coinage[/li][li]Built the Great Wall of China, and Lingqu canal[/li][li]Built his famous Mausoleum (“8th Wonder of the World”) with terra cotta army, etc.[/li][li]Built a system of roads, standardizing axle lengths[/li][li]Developed a standard code of laws[/li][/ul]
Since we seek “great” rather than “influential”, one might demote the First Emperor due to his brutality and book-burning. But he is in the top league for influence, certainly far above, for example, Queen Elizabeth I.
And Muhammad created the basis for what was for more than 500 years the leading civilization in the world (or at least #2 after China) out of what was pretty close to nothing, himself rising from a position of minimal influence.
You could allocate much of the credit for this rise to Umar, if you wished, but he’s already been voted out in what I’d consider a serious miscarriage of justice, if this game actually had any meaning.
I’m always glad to learn more. Thank you.
Peter the Great - 5
Frederick II - 3
Elizabeth I - 2
The votes:
Frederick II - 15
Peter the Great - 10
Elizabeth I - 9
Winston Churchill - 9
Alexander the Great, Muhammad, Saladin, George Washington, Qin Shi Huang - 5 each
Hammurabi - 2
The top four are now gone. That leaves just eleven (pretty close to a Top Ten list):
Alexander the Great - Macedonian conqueror, emperor
Caesar Augustus - Founded Roman Empire
Gaius Julius Caesar - Roman dictator, general
Cyrus the Great - Great, benevolent conqueror
Hammurabi - First written laws
Abraham Lincoln - Won Civil War
Muhammad - United all Arabia
Rameses II - Egypt’s greatest pharaoh
Saladin - Muslim leader, warrior
Qin Shi Huang - Unified China emperor
George Washington - First U.S. president
The current round of voting will end on Mon. June 28 at noon EST.
Quartz, thanks for the suggestion, but I think the previous rules are working all right. So: Same rules as the previous rounds, with ten votes per player, no more than five against any single leader, etc.
Saladin 5
I mean, really. The guy won some remarkable military victories, but so did the other 10 remaining; he made no institutional reforms, had little long-term effect on his region (the crusader states were in decline in any case), and his dynasty lasted less than 60 years after his death as any kind of force in the world. His main legacy is his legendary status; but anyone voting for Alexander should really cast their eyes in Saladin’s direction as well.
I’m going to spend some time later reading up on the other ten; if it’s okay, I’ll cast my other 5 votes later. If the moderater doesn’t want to deal with split votes like that I’ll forfeit them now.
Hammurabi - 5
Saladin - 3
Alexander the Great - 2
Is not Hammurabi’s fame due in part just to the happenstance that he overworked his scribes? 
Hammurabi wasn’t the first to codify laws. But having laws written down and publicly published (on a giant penis, no less!) that apply to everyone has echoed down the ages and around the world. Not to mention the concept of the presumption of innocence. And the Wikipedia article on him will show you that he did rather more than overwork his scribes.
My own votes stay the same:
5 - Alexander
5 - Washington
This is tough. Those remaining all have excellent claims to fame. But I’ll say:
Rameses II - 5
Saladin - 5
Hammurabi has made the short list of 11. I’m not necessarily arguing he doesn’t belong there, just that it’s time for him to go.
“… has echoed down the ages” suggests he’s more famous as a symbol than for his personal accomplishments. The Wikipedia article tends to confirm this. It also tends to confirm that an increase in the use of scribes is partly responsible for Hammurabi’s fame:
There were scores of ancient Mespotamian Kings who were conquerors and builders. Those more renowned than Hammurabi include Sargon the Great and the hero of the Epic of Gilgamesh (now known to be an historic figure).
That’s debatable. 
Hammurabi - 1 vote . It always seemed to me that the importance of his code was overrated
Abraham Lincoln - 4 votes. He won a war. So? Thousands of leaders did the same.
Muhammad - 3 votes. Mostly a religious leader albeit with some political/military talent. His successors were more important IMO
George Washington - 2 votes. Would he still be on the list if not for the fact that he is revered by Americans on this mostly American board?
Napoleon, Gladstone, Ho Chi Minh, Churchill and others warmly praised Washington in their lifetimes. He was not just an American hero.
Lincoln, in winning the American Civil War and so persuasively and memorably describing Union war aims, established the principle that a large democracy could undergo even the most serious rebellion and prevail, emerging stronger than ever. He also did much to abolish slavery in this country. That set him apart, as Tolstoy and others noted, from the typical leader.
Do you really think that the final situation would have been much different with some random other president?
Saladin - 5 - Tom Scud’s right, really. He’s skated longer than he should have.
Lincoln - 5 - I prefer Lincoln’s character/personality in a number of ways, but Washington was simply more influential in the long run. In this case his pre-presidential period as head of the Continental army from 1775 to independence qualifies as “national leadership” in my mind and while he was arguably a so-so field general, more than anyone else he held the American Revolution together in that period.
Abraham Lincoln - Won Civil War - 3
Muhammad - United all Arabia - 5
Qin Shi Huang - Unified China emperor - 2
So continuing:
Julius Caesar 3 - very successful as a general and conqueror, and he won his civil war, but he left a Roman Empire in chaos which his nephew had to pull it out of.
Alexander 2
Yes, quite possibly. Lincoln made plenty of mistakes but was arguably vitally necessary to the Union victory. Several other Northern leaders of the day were willing to let the Southern states go without any fight at all; others would’ve given up the fight far sooner. Lincoln had the determination, wisdom and insight to guide the Union to a final and decisive victory.
That said, I agree with Tamerlane: between Washington and Lincoln, I give Washington a slight but definite edge in terms of his significance in U.S. history.
It couldn’t have been easy to keep the North united in such a horrific war when all the South wanted was secession. (I touted John Brown unsuccessfully in the Greatest American game; his martyrdom may also have been essential to that cause.)