Oda Nobunaga

[Rodion Romanovich]

How skilled was he really? Looking at wikipedia, over his entire career, I'm a bit surprised over his so good reputation as general. In most of his battles where the troop numbers are explicitly given, he has 2:1 superiority or more. In the other battles, his opponent is usually a minor clan, so we may assume that there again he would have vastly superior number in most cases. Additionally, some of what are attributed to him as his "greatest battle victories" are just things like 30,000 soldiers carrying out a massacre of 20,000 monks and civilians (Mount Hiei, for example) - questionable if it at all should be called a battle, and plenty of the other battle victories have numbers such as 40,000 Oda forces vs 15,000 opponents and so on (with the 15,000 additionally being worn down by having sieged a castle for a long time, while the 40,000 were completely fresh). He also suffers defeat repeatedly even when he has 3:2 or 2:1 superiority in numbers on his side. So why his good reputation?

His only truly remarkable victory, considering numbers, according to my reading, is the Battle at Okehazama, where his 3,000 men were victorious against 25,000 men. However, it appears that essentially his opponent was drunk beyond reason, not carrying their weapons ready, not expecting an attack, and believing they had already won the campaign. They were celebrating, singing, dancing, and drinking at the time. Oda led his 3,000 men in a surprise attack onto the camp where these 25,000 drunk and unprepared men were staying, while putting a few banners on a hill on the opposite side, so the drunk men would think they were surrounded by a large force, and in their drunk state would just run away instead of fighting. Oda thus went into the camp and slaughtered the drunk or sleeping troops that couldn't get away. Admittedly a good plan showing great understanding of how drunk opponents and officers behave in battle, but apart from this incident, I can't really find a single reference to any sense of ingenuity in Oda's warfare, or any amazing victory at all against troops that were reasonably sober.

Yet, after the battle at Okehazama, Oda gained (perhaps undeserved?) great reputation enough to win many to his side (among others Tokugawa Ieasy). Once he got many skilled officers to his side, and enough troops to always have superiority in numbers, he could obviously gain more victories rather easily (couldn't anyone have, with such numbers on his side, as long as he wouldn't be drunk?), even though he seems to have been a less skilled commander than most enemies he later met in battle (according to the figures for the battles given by wikipedia). With more victories - even though these were unqualified successes based on extreme superiority in numbers - his reputation would of course improve even more. With constantly superior numbers and better generals, the following victories aren't very surprising - rather, what is more surprising is his many defeats even when he has superiority in numbers, considering what advantages he seems to have had. Anyway, whether victorious out of unqualified success or skill, he would be the warlord most soldiers would prefer to serve under after his early history of victorious, since they would get the same pay as from any other, but with greater chances of pillaging and less risk of death, due to the history of victories (whether unqualified or not). Thus, a positive feedback circle is created: he has a history of (unqualified) victories, and thus he gains resources that even an averagely competent commander would be unable to not gain victory with.

So, maybe it's possible to say that the battle of Okehazama decided the entire history of the Sengoku period, by creating the false reputation of Oda as a more skilled commander than he was, thus giving him the prerequisites for future (unqualified) successes?

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...yama_Hongan-ji
Oda 30,000 vs 15,000, enemy surrenders castle - unsurprising victory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mount_Hiei
30,000 Oda warriors slaughter 20,000 monks and civilians - unsurprising victory, was it even a battle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nagashino
38,000 Oda vs 15,000 enemies - unsurprising victory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tedorigawa
50,000 Oda troops defeated by Uesugi Kenshin's 30,000

[Franconicus]

Well, I am not an expert in Japanese warfare (which can be easily seen in the interactive of kage-san), but to the battle of Okehazama, I have th say that Legio is right and wrong.

Surely the troops of Imagawa did not expect an attack, they were drunk and not alert. Furthermore there had been a thunderstorm masking the advance of Oda.

And Oda had a lot of luck, because he managed to kill his opponent. This made the whole army of his enemy collapse and break appart. If Imagawa would have been able to escape and to gather his troops, Oda's victory would have been only the foreplay of another battle and maybe forgotten today. Only the death of the leader made it possible that many warriors changed sides and all over sudden Oda had the big army.

What made him a great general was the fact that he tried to attack his opponent, even though Immagawa's army was rediculous overpowered. And he made has men to follow him into a battle against such a strong enemy.

His strategy was risky, but without that, he wouldn't have won the battle and most certainly lost the war and his throne.

Surely he was lucky. But that has always been an attribute of good commanders.

[edyzmedieval]

Okehazama can be considered a masterpiece. 3000 men vs 25000, it can be considered a pea-sized Gaugamela. Oda was at his beginnings with his fights, and with only a handful of men, it took some time really before you could kill 25000 men. I mean, you entered the camp, but at least a slight portion of them would have understood what is going on, and surely they got prepared and started to fight them. It's basically impossible to slaughter 25000 without any of them realising. So, it took a lot of effort and skill to kill all those dancers.

After Okehazama, Imagawa's territories became relentless, and thus Tokugawa Ieyasu declared his independence. Ujizane, Imagawa's successor, did many mistakes, and this only improved Ieyasu's chances of winning.

Mount Hiei was a battle actually. The Ikko Ikki Sohei (monks) were skilled warriors, but the sheer numbers of Nobunaga made the difference. If it was equal, then I would have doubted a clear victory of Nobunaga.

Nagashino is one of my favourite battles. As a Takeda fan, Katsuyori was a total idiot actually in comparison to Takeda Shingen. He didn't listen to his commanders, most notably Baba Nobufusa and Yamagata Masakage, and he used the sheer power of his cavalry to attack the Oda lines. Nobunaga, apart from sheer numbers, had mastered the arquebus tactics, and deployed them in front of his lines. The massed cavalry attack stood absolutely no chances against those guns. 54 of the best Takeda generals died, and this spelled collapse for Takeda.

Oh, and Tedorigawa cannot be considered Oda's battle. The forces were commanded by Shibata Katsuie, who was absolutely no match for Uesugi Kenshin. Expecting an attack, combined with a skilled commander and experienced forces (Uesugi and Takeda fought every year...) were no match for Shibata.

Hope it helps.

[Franconicus]

... It's basically impossible to slaughter 25000 without any of them realising. So, it took a lot of effort and skill to kill all those dancers.
...

I doubt he did. By killing the daimyo, the army broke apart. The warrioir, esp. those from Mikawa, were no longer bound by their oath and could change sides or try get their independency.

Does anybody have numbers, how many warriors had been killed in this battle actually?

[Togakure]

Here's my two koku on this interesting character:

Regarding Okehazama, it was Nobunaga's recognition of the strategic opportunity and immediate action that demonstrated his prowess, not so much the tactical execution of the battle. He did not hesitate despite overwhelming odds, had the benefit of surprise and covering weather, and his men fought knowing that the fate of the clan was at stake. Yes, there was "luck," and the Imagawa were unprepared. But part of being a good commander is knowing when to act and not hesitating to engage in tatami-cushion analyses.

Another example of his ability to recognize strategic opportunity was the way he made use of the Christian missionaries and what they had to offer from the West. His use of firearms is well known so I won't go into that any deeper.

My understanding is that the Oda were poor in comparison to the other clans of the time. Other more established clans disdained the Oda, thinking Nobunaga a "small-time country daimyo." Hence I think his incredibly bold and audacious exploits might have seemed twice as big in the eyes of the people and his opponents. Perceptions <--> expectations, etc.

Nobunaga knew how to make use of established symbolic power, and fear. By firing Mount Hiei he sent a very clear message that there was little he wouldn't do against those who opposed his bid to unite and control the nation. leading up to the Mount Hiei incident, Nobunaga shrewdly secured the favor of the Emperor by manipulating the office of the otherwise ineffective Ashikaga Shogun.

Tokugawa Ieyasu, a respected daimyo of a granted, small clan, had deep respect for Nobunaga and allied with him for a very long time. This suggests much in the nature of Nobunaga's character.

Being a great leader is much, much more that just being a great battlefield commander. Proponents of Nobunaga have written that he had the fate of the nation at heart. He made excellent use of available resources, which other daimyos didn't recognize as quickly, and was willing to do whatever it took to achieve his goals. Total War, indeed.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, that was what I'm thinking: that as a military commander, he was only average (compared to the most prominent other daimyo of the time), and that his political strategy and reputation (for being better military commander than he was) was what was most crucial to his successes.

[edyzmedieval]

I doubt he did. By killing the daimyo, the army broke apart. The warrioir, esp. those from Mikawa, were no longer bound by their oath and could change sides or try get their independency.

Does anybody have numbers, how many warriors had been killed in this battle actually?

The death toll was too high to count. They slaughtered almost the entire army.

Killing the daimyo does not mean the whole army routs. I can't believe that from 25000 men not 1 single of them would not stand to fight!!!

[Rodion Romanovich]

You know, east Asians have much slower alcohol metabolism genes... And I can just imagine how good a fighter I would be when drunk: either I would fall asleep, or I would scream "hey, what's that?", next moment I would see something blurry approach, and realize after 2 seconds: "wow, that's an enemy", then see a sword coming, and 2 seconds later I would realize it and try to parry it, only to realize my head was already off and that that would be the last thing I would ever think.

[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.

[nokhor]

i think to discount nobunaga's genius and not to consider him an excellent general is a false notion. when nobunaga came to power, the oda controlled only a part of a province, and there were more established clans led by famed daimyo that held much more land than he did, like the shimazu, mori, takeda, and uesugi and yet the oda lands eclipsed the others over nobunaga's lifetime. how was this possible if not for nobunaga's military skill?

the oda did not have the huge base army of samurai that those other major clans had developed over time, so nobunaga decided to neutralized their advantage in his own special way. he based his own forces on peasent conscripts and to equalized the years of training a professional samurai based force would present, he armed his men with long spears and guns.

as for his tactical skill, much has been said about okehezama so i will not repeat it, so let us move on to nagashino. nobunaga brought the stockade with him, and set up behind the stream to impede the cavalry charge. when his first navy was defeated by blockade runners at osaka, he built a new one based around iron plated hulled ships that proved impossible to defeat.

but it is in the strategic arena that nobunaga shines, because the warfare he was involved in was coalition warfare, akin to what frederick the great and napoleon faced. he was fighting a multi front war for over 3 decades, usually against 4 or 5 opponents. on multiple occasions, nobunaga would be within inches of totally obliterating an enemy, and to his far rear another enemy would breakthrough one of his vassal's fronts, or a vassal would defect, or an ally would switch sides, forcing him to withdraw and deal with the new threat. and just when he was strectched taut and could not spare any more soldiers, there would be another religious uprising in a corner of his domain that would just throw the whole outcome up in the air again.

meanwhile, if he did manage to eliminate one of his opponents, they would almost automatically be replaced by a stronger, better led clan with more troops. the foolish imagawa were replaced by the asai/asakura which were replaced by the mori, takeda, uesugi. so even as he expanded, his enemies got correspondingly tougher. from my perspective, the oda domain was always on the verge of collapse, and it was through sheer will power that he held it together.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Mount Hiel Was more of a massarce to me then a Battle, but that's just my opninon.

[Watchman]

By what I understand of it the sohei of Hiei were a serious enough military force, and it didn't exactly hurt that their fortified temple was on a mountain. That Nobunaga had the whole bunch massacred after breaking them militarily is beside the point, and not exactly unusual for the time and place - or the time in general.

And yeah, I agree with the notion that being able to bring a superior force to bear against an opponent is a show of capable enough warlordship in itself - after all, "never give a sucker a fair fight" has been a military maxim for a long time. Nobody ever voluntarily fought at a disadvantage, assuming of course he realized he was in such straits.

Of course if you manage to lose anyway it's a bit different...