English Version
Cao Cao, the warlord who carved out power in the age of the Three Kingdoms, and Oda Nobunaga, the Japanese Sengoku-era ruler who called himself the Demon King of the Sixth Heaven, are often compared by history fans. They lived more than 1,000 years apart, so any direct comparison is impossible. Even so, the two share enough similarities that people still argue over the question: which one was stronger?
Here is a side-by-side look at Cao Cao, who became king of Wei, and Nobunaga, who advanced under the slogan of unifying the realm by force and came to dominate central Japan.
Their younger years
Oda Nobunaga is famous for being called the Great Fool of Owari in his youth. Cao Cao, too, had a rough reputation when he was young. According to one tradition, he was called Aman, a name associated with a liar or trickster, and his conduct was said to be less than respectable.
Cao Cao spent time with men who might be described as wandering fighters or outlaws, which makes his youth feel somewhat similar to that of Liu Bei. Nobunaga, likewise, is said to have been admired as a leader among commoners and men of different social ranks in the castle town.
Later, both men elevated people connected to their youth. Cao Cao gave important positions in Wei to relatives and old associates such as Xiahou Dun. Nobunaga also made use of men he had known since his younger days, placing them in his special horo-shu, or elite bodyguard-style units.
Both attracted followers early, but their paths to power were different. Cao Cao’s grandfather had been a powerful eunuch, so Cao Cao quickly entered official service. Nobunaga, on the other hand, had to fight through succession struggles within the Oda family before the famous Battle of Okehazama. He also faced repeated internal conflicts because he did not yet fully control his home province of Owari.
In that sense, their personalities and early reputations appear fairly similar. But both men truly rose to major political influence after they began protecting a symbolic ruler.
Using authority to legitimize power
One major similarity between Cao Cao and Nobunaga was their use of political legitimacy. By protecting an emperor, shogun, or other authority figure, they could justify their own actions while expanding power.
Cao Cao protected Emperor Xian and brought him from Luoyang to Xuchang, which was under Cao Cao’s control. From that point on, Cao Cao possessed a powerful source of legitimacy in his campaigns.
Nobunaga protected Ashikaga Yoshiaki and, after entering Kyoto, helped him become shogun.
Whether Nobunaga ultimately intended to become shogun himself is still debated. Likewise, historians continue to discuss whether Cao Cao intended to become emperor. What they shared is important: during their lifetimes, neither directly seized the throne or ruling office in a simple, open takeover.
Cao Cao is sometimes mistaken for an emperor of Wei, but it was his son Cao Pi who received the imperial title. Cao Cao himself was honored posthumously. Some accounts also say that even when many retainers urged him to take the imperial position, Cao Cao firmly refused.
Nobunaga entered Kyoto and placed Ashikaga Yoshiaki in the shogunate, but five years later Yoshiaki turned against him and was expelled. After that, Nobunaga acted under imperial permission from the court. Later conflicts with Yoshiaki, Ishiyama Hongan-ji, and the Mori clan were still unresolved when Nobunaga died in the Honno-ji Incident.
The Muromachi shogunate under the Ashikaga family had largely lost real power. Toyotomi Hideyoshi later remained kampaku, or imperial regent, and it was not until Tokugawa Ieyasu that the Edo shogunate was established.
Military achievements
Comparing their military achievements is extremely difficult. Their eras were completely different, and so were their weapons, armor, and armies.
Nobunaga won the Battle of Okehazama, a battle many believed he could not win, defeating Imagawa Yoshimoto, who was known as the greatest archer of the Tokai region. Nobunaga also adopted firearms, a new weapon in Japan at the time, and used them in the Battle of Nagashino, where the powerful Takeda cavalry was devastated.
Saito Dosan of Mino, Nobunaga’s father-in-law and a commander known for his skill in war, reportedly believed the bow was superior to the gun. The spread of imported firearms in Japanese warfare is often seen as one of Nobunaga’s innovations, although some research suggests other warlords were also collecting guns.
In other words, what made both men exceptional may have been tactics.
Nobunaga actively embraced new ways of fighting. Cao Cao, by contrast, gathered many talented strategists, listened to their advice, and is said to have edited and annotated Sun Tzu’s The Art of War for practical use. The version of The Art of War known today in 13 chapters is often connected to Cao Cao’s compilation.
Cao Cao was unquestionably an intellectual figure. He and his sons, including Cao Zhi, left their names in the world of Chinese poetry and culture as well.
One trait both men shared was the ability to endure defeat. They understood that victory and loss are part of war.
There is an anecdote that when Nobunaga’s eldest son failed in a castle attack and considered taking responsibility by suicide, Nobunaga called him to a tea room and spoke of handing over the family leadership instead.
Cao Cao experienced many wars and defeats as well. He was badly injured and defeated in battles against Lu Bu, and he suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Red Cliffs, the event later made famous internationally through the film Red Cliff.
If we list some of their major victories, Nobunaga is associated with Okehazama, Nagashino, and the burning of Enryaku-ji on Mount Hiei. Cao Cao is associated with Guandu, Tong Pass, and Fancheng. Neither man is easily outclassed.
Still, neither Nobunaga nor Cao Cao won forever. Their similarity lies in how they survived defeat, preserved their power, rebuilt their forces, and returned to war.
If they fought under equal conditions
From here, this becomes speculation. If Cao Cao and Nobunaga fought under perfectly equal conditions, with the same equipment and soldiers, Cao Cao might have the advantage.
Nobunaga was undoubtedly intelligent, but Cao Cao’s military knowledge seems almost obsessive in its depth. Both men were also responsible for massacres, though the motives described in historical accounts differ. Cao Cao’s most famous act of massacre is often connected to revenge. Nobunaga, on the other hand, is sometimes portrayed as having committed massacre in anger or frustration.
If that interpretation is accepted, Nobunaga appears more impulsive, while Cao Cao appears more controlled and calculating.
Of course, that conclusion is only imagination. Different readers will see the comparison differently. But one thing is certain: both Cao Cao and Oda Nobunaga were heroic, terrifying, and unforgettable warlords who left deep marks on history.
Many places connected to Nobunaga, such as temples, castle ruins, and battlefield sites, are real historic locations. If you visit them in Japan, follow posted rules, respect active religious sites, and do not enter restricted areas.
Japanese Language
三国志で覇道を貫いた 曹操 と日本の戦国時代において第六天魔王を自称した 信長 。歴史上の人物で比較される君主や武将は多いですが、 曹操と信長には共通点が多い ことでも有名です。活躍した時代が1000年以上違っているので、一概に比較することはできませんが、どちらの方が強いか？と言う論争が起こることもしばしばある2人の英雄。今回は魏の王となった曹操と、天下布武を掲げて日本の中央を支配した信長について比較していこうと思います。。信長と曹操の青年期を比較。
。織田信長は幼少期より「尾張の大うつけ」と呼ばれていたことは有名なエピソードですが、実は青年期の曹操も阿萬（あまん ）と呼ばれていました。。古代中国での阿萬とは「うそつき」という意味などで使われており、曹操自身の素行もあまり良くなかったようです。。いわゆる侠客との付き合いが多かった曹操の青年期は、劉備と比較的似ているとも言えます。同じく信長も城下町において庶民などの身分差のある男達の中でリーダーのような存在として慕われていたといいます。
曹操も青年期から付き合いのあった夏候惇などの親戚を後に魏の国で重用し、信長も青年期に鍛えた男達を後に母衣衆として自身の特別な部隊として重用しました。2人とも青年期から多くの人に慕われていた一方で、曹操は祖父が宦官の権力者であったことからすぐに役人となりますが、信長は有名な桶狭間の戦いの前に織田家の中で家督争いをしています。さらに信長は自国である尾張の中でも権力を掌握出来ていなかったために、多くの内戦を経験しています。この辺りを比べると、人物像は比較的似ているとも言えますが、曹操や信長自身が台頭してくるのは、お互いに帝を庇護して以降になります。
権力者を庇護して正当性を見出す。。自分の権力を高めていく過程で皇帝や将軍、天皇を庇護することによって、自身の行動に正当性を付けるという政治手法は曹操、信長に共通している部分です。曹操は 献帝を庇護することによって洛陽にいた帝を自分自身の領土であった許昌に迎え入れ、以降の戦いにおいて大きな正当性を持つことになります。。一方、信長は足利義昭を庇護し、上洛すると足利義昭が将軍になれるように働きかけます。最終的に信長は自分が将軍になろうとしたのか？
また、曹操も最終的に自分が皇帝になろうとしていたのか？という部分については未だに議論されているところですが、いわゆる室町幕府が既に力を失っていた戦国時代、そして漢王朝が権威を失っていたという三国時代において、両者は 存命中に直接政権を乗っ取る行為はしていない ということも共通しています。曹操は後に魏の皇帝になったと思われがちですが、皇帝の帝位を渡されたのは息子の曹丕であり、曹操自身は死後に号を与えられたに過ぎません。献帝の庇護を進言した多くの家臣が帝位を持つように進言しても、曹操はこれを頑なに断ったという説も残っています。
。織田信長は京都に上洛し、中央で足利義昭を将軍にしますが、5年後には足利義昭の裏切りによって追放、そこからは天皇に 勅許を奉じて行動していきます。。後に、足利義昭とは対立し、石山本願寺や毛利家との争いは信長が本能寺の変で倒れた段階でも決着がついていませんでした。。足利家による室町幕府は実質機能していませんが、豊臣秀吉も関白にとどまり、徳川家康によってようやく江戸幕府が開かれます。。戦争による軍事的な功績。。2人の軍事面での功績を比較することは非常に難しいです。
まず、生きていた時代が大きく違うことから使っている武器や装備が違います。織田信長は桶狭間で勝てないと言われた戦いにおいて、東海一の弓取りと呼ばれた今川義元を破り、さらに鉄砲という新しい兵器を取り入れて当時最強と呼ばれた武田の騎馬軍団を長篠の戦いで壊滅に追い込みます。信長の正室の父であり、戦上手と呼ばれていた、美濃の斎藤道三などは鉄砲よりも弓の方が優れていると考えていました。日本での戦争において南蛮製鉄砲の普及は織田信長の革新のように考えられることもありますが、実は他の武将達も鉄砲を集めていたという研究もあるそうです。
つまり、 両者が優れていたポイントは「戦術」であった ことが考えられます。新しい戦い方を積極的に取り入れた信長とは対象的に、曹操は多くの有能な軍師を抱えて意見を聞き、孫武の兵法書である「孫子の兵法」を註釈をつけて編纂し使用していたと言われています。※孫子の兵法が現在の13巻になったのは曹操の編纂によるものです 。曹操が知識人であったことは間違いなく、漢詩などの文化においても曹操やその息子であり曹植などはその名を残しました。両者に共通する点は、「勝敗は兵家の常」という懐の深さにあったと言えます。
。織田信長の嫡男が城攻めに失敗し、その責任を負って自害をしようと考えた時に、信長は茶室に息子を呼んで家督を譲る話をしたという逸話があります。また、曹操自身は多くの戦争を経験していますが、呂布との戦いでは大怪我を負って敗戦もしていますし、映画「レッドクリフ」のモデルとなった赤壁の戦いでも大敗北を経験しています。当時の情勢で各自の大きな勝利を挙げるとすれば。織田信長・・・ 「桶狭間の戦い」「長篠の戦い」「比叡山延暦寺の焼き討ち」 曹操・・・ 「官渡の戦い」「潼関の戦い」「樊城の戦い」 両者ともに、引けを取りません。
しかし、信長も曹操も常に勝ち続けていた訳ではなく、一度負けても勢力を保持し、再び力を蓄えて軍備を整えたという点においては近いものがあると言えるでしょう。もしも時代を超えて装備や兵士が同じだったら・・・。ここからは個人的な妄想になりますが、もしも両者が完全な同条件において戦った場合には おそらく曹操が勝利するのではないか？と考えます。信長が聡明であったことも間違いではないですが、曹操の軍事的な知識は、 もはやマニアの域 だと言えます。また、両者共に虐殺をしたという事実もありますが、曹操の虐殺行為で最も有名なものは敵討ちとなった戦いです。
一方、信長は自分自身の憂さ晴らしで虐殺を行ったとも言われています。つまり、直情的であったのはおそらく信長であり、曹操の方が冷静に物事を考えているように見えてしまうのです。もちろん、この結論はあくまでも想像の上でのお話ですので、どう考えるかは人それぞれです。しかし1つだけ言えるのは両者共に歴史に残る英雄的な武将であったことは確かな事実でしょう
