This is an interesting questions and before I begin to answer, I'd also recommend you take a look at some other posts on Washington. [I'm also going to put a fair warning out: "Founding Fathers" posts tend to be hotly debated as there is such a plethora of material written about them over the centuries, it's often difficult to shift through the myths. Washington might be the most difficult!]

u/Xxxn00bpwnR69xxX Was Washington A Good General?

u/jerdub1993 "Presidents' before Washington

u/DDM201 Washington as Strategist

As for a more direct answer to your question: I'd highly suggest reading Ferling's Almost A Miracle and Royster's A Revolutionary People at War for a very good look at the Revolutionary War and Washington as a military leader and political figure. The quickest answer to your question is to look at Washington's character and political appeal rather than his military background. Although much of Washington's "larger than life appeal was born after the Revolution, with the outbreak of armed hostilities in 1775, Washington was almost a unanimous candidate for leadership of the Continental Army for a number of reasons.

Foremost, Washington's character was renown among Revolutionary leaders.Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton, or Jefferson, Washington was not incredibly educated in the arts and both politicians and the commons alike saw him as trustworthy. While the elite minds often participated in political banter, Washington did not entertain the same debates that so enthralled men like Jefferson and Hamilton on the merits of revolution. Although an immensely wealthy Virginia planter and western land speculator, Washington was admired by many Americans because of his broad appeal that was far more egalitarian than some of the other founders.

Second, Washington was among the leading military figures participating in the Continental Congress. There were certainly other men with military positions who believed they could challenge Washington's abilities on the battlefield, Benedict Arnold a prominent figure among them, few were as well respected by the politicians as Washington was.

Third, there is a bit of self interest involved. Washington committed early to the struggle against Great Britain, although not necessarily an early force in independence. As a plantation owner and land speculator, the imperial restrictions of post-1763 threatened Washington's investments, which pushed him to join the Continental Congress. Always interested in his own investments, Washington was a moderate, which gained him the respect of both radical seperatists and more conservative reformists. I'd suggest reading Woody Holton's Forced Founders and Gordon Wood's Revolutionary Characters.

Finally, and intimately connected to all of the points above, at his core, Washington longed to be a yeoman farmer. While he served the cause as a military leader and then as reluctant executive in the federal government, Washington's desire was always to be on his plantation in Virginia. He read and wrote constantly on farming practices and the agricultural science. Politicians and average Americans who feared strong central power, recognized Washington as little threat to republicanism because power was not his ambition.

TL;DR: Much of Washington's larger than life status was born post-revolution; however, he had a number of personal qualities that made him fit to lead the revolution and later the young nation.