Oda Nobunaga

[KrooK]

Interesting topic.
I agree with previous post - good leader don't have to be good general. He don't have to win battle but war. According to my knowlegde Nobunaga never lost a war.

Notice that at Okehazama he won - no care how drunken enemies were. He had to win , so he used every condition which could help his small army against bigger opponent. Talking about Mount Hiei remember that there were 30.000 Oda's soldiers vs 20.000 monks but monks were on hill.

As was mentioned here later Nobunaga had people advantage. But wasn't that proof of his genius - he did everything to provide victory. No care how many soldiers you have - your objective is victory.

I like Nobunaga not for his battles but for his reforms. Small steps that helped so much.
Same uniforms for soldiers seems to be something normal but imagine how much it improves morale.

[SwordsMaster]

But isn't it also a matter of masterful military campaigning when you can bring to bear to battle more men than the enemy? Isn't this exactly what Sun Tzu was saying about not fighting a battle you cannot win? I believe that the planning and logistics and timing involved with bringing more men to the battlefield, and also the fact that he was consistently able to do so, is a good proof of his commanding capacity. On the other hand, he seems like a fairly average tactician, but he is nonetheless a great strategist.

[Togakure]

But isn't it also a matter of masterful military campaigning when you can bring to bear to battle more men than the enemy?

I agree, and expand on that. In discussion of our beloved games here, I've heard much pride and admiration for/from those who can blitz and complete their campaign in ten years or less (40 seasons in STW). I, personally, take pride in a campaign where I fight few battles because my superiority in position, economics, infrastructure, troop numbers, and diplomacy causes opposition not to attack, and to withdraw when I attack.

Strategic "total" warfare encompasses so much more than doing battle on the field. The more that is known about the opposition, the fewer lives lost, the greater the economy, the more land and infrastructure preserved, and especially--the more hearts and minds won--the better the commander (leader). I'm assuming we're talking about "supreme" commander, as this was Nobunaga's role in the Oda clan.

Isn't this exactly what Sun Tzu was saying about not fighting a battle you cannot win?

Sun Tzu's axiom is general, so personally, I wouldn't used the term "exactly" here. There are many examples of this, and they're quite varied, I think (I'm not in a position to provide a lot of examples right now--but all, please do if you've got them). For example, Nobunaga followed this axiom in reverse at Okehazama with a vastly inferior army. The Oda were in a situation where they had little hope of success, survival even, before the opportunity at Okehazama was revealed. When Nobunaga learned of Yoshimoto's foolishness, he realized this was a battle he could win, whereas all other options seemed quite grim.

I believe that the planning and logistics and timing involved with bringing more men to the battlefield, and also the fact that he was consistently able to do so, is a good proof of his commanding capacity. On the other hand, he seems like a fairly average tactician, but he is nonetheless a great strategist.

I would think that in most cases Nobunaga established what needed to happen. His brilliant retainer generals (Hideyoshi et. Al.) were then tasked to determine how to make it happen. This is a simplistic but effective way of differentiating between the nature of strategic and tactical command. It doesn't apply to all great leaders, but it applies to many. A good leader who inspires other good leaders to serve from the Heart is a Great leader.

[Martok]

I second Swordmaster and Masamune on this. I've always been under the impression that Nobunaga's success had less to do with winning brilliant victories (battles like Okehazama notwithstanding), than with his overall strategic vision & ability. It seems to me that the commander who manages to consistently create favorable conditions for himself (via superior forces, supply, position, etc.) is just as intelligent and successful as the general who achieves victory via brilliant/unorthodox tactics, and Oda is a good example of the former.

[Seign Thelas]

Agreed, the generals who get don't let themselves get outnumbered or outmatched are just as good as the generals who get outnumbered and win anyway. The difference is foresight.

[Ravie]

Legio already knows wat it feels like to be on the end of some of Oda's genius.

(See Sengoku Jidai IH)

[AggonyDuck]

It would be better to keep Sengoku Jidai banter in the SJ thread.

As to Nobunaga, I can't help but agree with Masamune and Swordsmaster, because they're absolutely correct. Nobunaga was one of the greatest daimyo of the Sengoku era, but he was only a good general. It was his qualities as an administrator and organiser that ended up giving the Oda clan the advantages they enjoyed on the battlefield and what ultimately made Oda one of three unifiers.