Awesome thank you for the links.

As an American English-speaker I think my ostensible tribal obligation is to call it a tie at worst and take Sir Isaac’s part by default, but Wikipedia seems to be going out of its way to avoid concluding that Leibniz got there first: I’m curious if Germans have a different view than us in the Empire or it’s former colonies.

It seems a tough case to make that Newton wasn’t the more influential thinker overall, but on Calc I-IV? Lot of claims about stuff that he “decided not to publish”.

Indeed. To add to this - first to develop or not, Leibniz published first, and Newton's shameless unfounded accusations against him cannot be reasonably defended. I don't see any pro-Newton arguments in this situation besides "tribal obligations" that you mention.

In the realm of calculus Leibniz is far more influential - his notation, for instance, is so superior that English mathematicians rejecting it arguably led to the stagnation of the field in England. And of course it is far more prevalent today.

IIRC Newton also exploited his role as President of the Royal Society to attack Leibnitz. Just because he was a genius, doesn't mean that he wasn't also an arsehole. Maybe if he was was a more mellow and less driven, he wouldn't have been the genius he was.

Leibniz certainly has a profile closer to that of Thomas Young: a polymath with a name far less known to general public.

Great references!