I apologize for not being able to answer this in more depth at the moment. Generally, no. Nuremburg was unprecedented, especially the scale of the trials and the legal underpinning of the whole endeavor. (When saying "Nuremberg," be sure to indicate which set of trials you mean since there were several. My assumption is that we are talking about the trials of the major war criminals -- the Nazi high command.)

In the past, victors had found easier solutions for dealing with the leadership of belligerent nations. For instance, Napoleon was exiled. After the First World War, there was a proposal to try Kaiser Wilhelm for war crimes, but he went into exile before this happened.

In Nuremberg, one of the principle charges was the new concept of "Crimes against Humanity." While this was argued to be an ex post facto charge by the defendants, the victorious nations, particularly the U.S. and Justice Jackson, held that the crimes were so odious as to be understood as inherently illegal.