Was Leonardo Da Vinci Really a Renaissance Man?

Historians and people have always said that Leonardo Da Vinci was a true Renaissance man, but is this actually the case? Was he just someone who was really talented in the arts and sciences or was he truly changing the views of the people? 

To start I just want to pose the question; was Leonardo Da Vinci just a really good artist who in the right place at the right time? What if there were other commoners sketching people and scientific items,but just was not as good so he did not get the same recognition as Da Vinci?

Additionally, what evidence is there that Leonardo Da Vinci was really changing the opinion of society and/or the nobility. People during this time were very easy to manipulate due to the lack of education minus the nobles that is. Many peasants and commoners would most likely believe what the nobility said even if it was not true. The nobility was having portraits and such painted by Da Vinci and claiming he was the best artist of the time. They claimed his techniques were new and inventive much like historians today claim. But is this really the case? Are there other people out there that were using the same techniques before Da Vinci but had no way to reach the nobility to employ them thus, not gaining the fame Leonardo did. Da Vinci’s depictions of human while accurate were not necessarily giving a “rebirth” to the subject of human anatomy. The same goes for his paintings as well.

I personally believe that the title “Renaissance Man” is something that modern culture has given out to members of the past who we denote as important. Leonardo Da Vinci, while important, was not necessarily changing the face of art and science during his day and age. He was not giving these subjects a rebirth. He was simply a very talented artist who was in the right place at the right time.