Final answer:
The statement suggests that an honorable warrior can win battles through skill, strategy, and wit rather than through killing, aligning with a historical perspective that values tactics and minimal violence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "An honorable warrior does not need to kill other cats to win his battles" reflects a philosophy that values skill, strategy, and cunning over brute force. Drawing reference from historical strategies, a successful warrior or leader is often one who can achieve their goals with minimal violence, illustrating that prowess in battle is not solely defined by one's ability to inflict death. For instance, a supreme excellence in military strategy is considered to be breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting, as highlighted in the principle, 'Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.'
Furthermore, skill and bravery might be demonstrated by non-violent means such as horse raids or by outmaneuvering the opponent, suggesting that honor can be separated from the act of killing.
Indeed, in chariot fighting and other forms of combat, seizing the enemy’s resources and integrating them into one's own, as per historical context, demonstrated strategic acumen and strength. The clever combatant is one who imposes his will on the enemy, rather than resorting to unnecessary violence or allowing the enemy to dictate the terms of engagement.