Jump to content

Primary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Secondary: Sky Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Squares Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
* * * * * (4.62 - 195votes)

Drifters


Alt Names: alt ドリフターズalt 漂泊者alt Скитальцы
Author: Hirano Kouta
Artist: Hirano Kouta
Genres: Action ActionAdventure AdventureComedy ComedyDrama DramaFantasy FantasyHistorical HistoricalSeinen Seinen
Type: Manga (Japanese)
Status: Ongoing
Description: The story of Drifters takes place during Japan's Sengoku period (roughly 15th to 17th century), a time of constant warring between the island's states, and a natural setting of choice for samurai stories. A young samurai on verge of death suddenly finds himself into another, fantastic world, alongside important military figures from history. How? Why? These questions remain unanswered.

============Notice================
Please refrain from further changing the image of the volume cover. Non-compliance will result in a warning.
==========Notice End==============
Go to Drifters Forums! | Scroll Down to Comments
The following content is intended for mature audiences and may contain sexual themes, gore, violence and/or strong language. Discretion is advised.


Latest Forum Posts

Topic Started By Stats Last Post Info
Topic Black King New Window Tim Wills
  • 4 Replies
  • 1038 Views
Topic I think this Manga is masturbation New Window Similar-man
  • 2 Replies
  • 1769 Views
Topic Black King Identity New Window Tim Wills
  • 8 Replies
  • 2110 Views
Topic Thank You New Window xscraid
  • 10 Replies
  • 759 Views
Topic New chapters? New Window evil6961
  • 9 Replies
  • 1398 Views

Chapters

Title Group Contributor Date
Ch.57: Work of the War God
INP-Mangaz Hamderbob 3 weeks ago
x

Register now for full access! You'll be able to follow (bookmark) your favorites, get updates on new releases, and more! It's completely free and only takes a minute.



407 Comments

that will be the site of the final battle

 

at the dawn of the third day, look to the east

This just goes to show you why you shouldn't use wikipedia as a source.  Whoever edits the pages regarding jesus seems pretty biased towards the side that Jesus is historical, considering they frequently use questionable language like "almost all modern scholars agree".  Having spoken with my UC Davis medieval history professor, most historians avoid delving too deep into the subject due to how touchy it is and how few facts are really available, so most just handwave the subject by saying, sure we suppose he existed, because there isn't really conclusive proof he didn't and everyone would rip our heads off if we claimed he didn't.  Some historians are also likely biased (the US for example, is still 70% christian, after all) considering that calling into question the historicity of jesus calls into question christianity.  Many sources on the page are theologians after all. 

 

I won't go so far as to claim that Jesus doesn't exist, but he's very poorly evidenced even for a historical figure of that era (though that really shouldn't be surprising, since if he did exist, he wasn't very famous during his own lifetime compared to an emperor or something), so his existence is far from the open and shut case that the wikipedia page seems to want it to appear as.

 

Lets look at one of the two "widely accepted historical facts" listed on the page.  The crucifixion.  The first argument for it is the "criterion of embarrassment", which can be summed up as, the crucifixion of jesus is a lame death and no one would make up a lame death for their prophet if they were making him up.  This...isn't actually an argument at all and its kind of embarrassing that its being used as an argument for historicity.  The next and most compelling argument is that Josephus and Tacitus both wrote about it and they aren't christian writers.  

Josephus' account is questionable because the Testimonium Flavianum is generally agreed to have been doctored or inserted by later copyists.  This doesn't mean the account is entirely void, but it is hard to say its a total slam dunk.  Copyists of ancient times were pretty shit about preserving works entirely accurately and would often add or change things as they saw fit.  It should also be noted that Josephus wrote his text about 60 years after Jesus's supposed death.  

Next is Tacitus.  His writings can also possibly be suspected of copyist meddling, but there isn't any telling indication it was, unlike with Josephus, so lets assume its accurate.  The other problem with Tacitus is that his writing was 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus.  Thus his account is almost certainly not from any firsthand account and thus could simply be a repetition of something christians told him.  Thus his account is really just a representation of the beliefs of christians at that time.  This means that even if Tacitus is telling things accurately, he may accurately be recording inaccurate information.  

 

Now you might be thinking that these two accounts were only about one to two generations away from Jesus's supposed lifetime, surely an entirely fictional story could not have been produced that could garner that much conviction and certainty in such a short time.  Maybe over hundreds of years a fictional story could become believed to be true.  Actually, there are modern examples of completely fabricated/false stories becoming completely believed stories within less than a lifetime.  One example is the Roswell UFO incident, where within 30-50 years, countless people were convinced a UFO had arrived and some even claimed to be eyewitnesses.  This happened in the modern era, with modern record keeping and modern attitudes towards history.  Another example is the John Frum figure in the cargo cult of Tanna.  Within the period from WWII to now, the area's existing religions morphed from visions of a prophet to accounts of a (nonexistent) american service man, John Frum, who promised to bring wealth and prosperity to his followers.  Within a generation or so, an entirely fabricated individual became entirely "historical" to the islanders.  

 

With all this said, I would hardly claim that Jesus certainly didn't exist, but it seems disingenuous to claim that he certainly or likely did.

 

In short, we're dealing with something like Robin Hood? y'know, someone that may not actually exist, but commonly believed by lots of ppl as an actual person?

 

sounds legit to me.

 

This is starting to sound like a plot from Fate/stay or Percy Jackson. I like it. Maybe someone should make a manga outa it.

Uh, no, even if you disregard the bible and believe it doesn't represent historical truth, there is historical proof that a guy named Jesus existed in the specific time period, who was crucified by Poncio Pilatos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Jesus was not exactly a rare name, you know?

More likely that Jesus is just a mix for the deeds of several existing preachers around his time, and after.

Drunk People telling stories at the camp fire tend to mix stuff together. But make fun stories.

Spoiler

Impossible...

tumblr_m4wf5vdFz01r6f4rx.gif

 

My guess is probably that Nobuhide came into this world hundreds of years before the events of the storyline. Which would explain how the locals know of Drifters and why they are called Drifters.


So, Nobuhide was Nobunaga's father, but died of the plague at a relatively young age. Iehisa was Toyohisa's father and Yoshihiro's brother, who either died of illness or was poisoned after the Toyotomi took over his family's territory. The two of them really shouldn't have had much interaction at all, since their lands were pretty far apart. Maybe they are trying to say that the castle they are fixing is some kind of famous one that was gated in, but my Japanese history knowledge is mostly from just Nobunaga's Ambition.

Maybe they were the leader of the resistance against Hitler's pure-human empire in the last round.

Uh, no, even if you disregard the bible and believe it doesn't represent historical truth, there is historical proof that a guy named Jesus existed in the specific time period, who was crucified by Poncio Pilatos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

This just goes to show you why you shouldn't use wikipedia as a source.  Whoever edits the pages regarding jesus seems pretty biased towards the side that Jesus is historical, considering they frequently use questionable language like "almost all modern scholars agree".  Having spoken with my UC Davis medieval history professor, most historians avoid delving too deep into the subject due to how touchy it is and how few facts are really available, so most just handwave the subject by saying, sure we suppose he existed, because there isn't really conclusive proof he didn't and everyone would rip our heads off if we claimed he didn't.  Some historians are also likely biased (the US for example, is still 70% christian, after all) considering that calling into question the historicity of jesus calls into question christianity.  Many sources on the page are theologians after all. 

 

I won't go so far as to claim that Jesus doesn't exist, but he's very poorly evidenced even for a historical figure of that era (though that really shouldn't be surprising, since if he did exist, he wasn't very famous during his own lifetime compared to an emperor or something), so his existence is far from the open and shut case that the wikipedia page seems to want it to appear as.

 

Lets look at one of the two "widely accepted historical facts" listed on the page.  The crucifixion.  The first argument for it is the "criterion of embarrassment", which can be summed up as, the crucifixion of jesus is a lame death and no one would make up a lame death for their prophet if they were making him up.  This...isn't actually an argument at all and its kind of embarrassing that its being used as an argument for historicity.  The next and most compelling argument is that Josephus and Tacitus both wrote about it and they aren't christian writers.  

Josephus' account is questionable because the Testimonium Flavianum is generally agreed to have been doctored or inserted by later copyists.  This doesn't mean the account is entirely void, but it is hard to say its a total slam dunk.  Copyists of ancient times were pretty shit about preserving works entirely accurately and would often add or change things as they saw fit.  It should also be noted that Josephus wrote his text about 60 years after Jesus's supposed death.  

Next is Tacitus.  His writings can also possibly be suspected of copyist meddling, but there isn't any telling indication it was, unlike with Josephus, so lets assume its accurate.  The other problem with Tacitus is that his writing was 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus.  Thus his account is almost certainly not from any firsthand account and thus could simply be a repetition of something christians told him.  Thus his account is really just a representation of the beliefs of christians at that time.  This means that even if Tacitus is telling things accurately, he may accurately be recording inaccurate information.  

 

Now you might be thinking that these two accounts were only about one to two generations away from Jesus's supposed lifetime, surely an entirely fictional story could not have been produced that could garner that much conviction and certainty in such a short time.  Maybe over hundreds of years a fictional story could become believed to be true.  Actually, there are modern examples of completely fabricated/false stories becoming completely believed stories within less than a lifetime.  One example is the Roswell UFO incident, where within 30-50 years, countless people were convinced a UFO had arrived and some even claimed to be eyewitnesses.  This happened in the modern era, with modern record keeping and modern attitudes towards history.  Another example is the John Frum figure in the cargo cult of Tanna.  Within the period from WWII to now, the area's existing religions morphed from visions of a prophet to accounts of a (nonexistent) american service man, John Frum, who promised to bring wealth and prosperity to his followers.  Within a generation or so, an entirely fabricated individual became entirely "historical" to the islanders.  

 

With all this said, I would hardly claim that Jesus certainly didn't exist, but it seems disingenuous to claim that he certainly or likely did.

So, Nobuhide was Nobunaga's father, but died of the plague at a relatively young age. Iehisa was Toyohisa's father and Yoshihiro's brother, who either died of illness or was poisoned after the Toyotomi took over his family's territory. The two of them really shouldn't have had much interaction at all, since their lands were pretty far apart. Maybe they are trying to say that the castle they are fixing is some kind of famous one that was gated in, but my Japanese history knowledge is mostly from just Nobunaga's Ambition.

Spoiler

Impossible...

tumblr_m4wf5vdFz01r6f4rx.gif

That guy... is Anonymus! :D

Spoiler

Doyou know who Hirano-sensei could put in this manga? Simo Häyhä

 

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html

Doyou know who Hirano-sensei could put in this manga? Simo Häyhä

Uh, no, even if you disregard the bible and believe it doesn't represent historical truth, there is historical proof that a guy named Jesus existed in the specific time period, who was crucified by Poncio Pilatos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Yeah, he got tired of human and all their shit so he decided to preach to the Demis this time.

Can't blame the guy though, he has so many believers but not a single one of em save him during the crucifix, and one of his disciples betrayed him. lol

So far all Drifters on both sides were historical characters, Jesus is a mythical one. Bysides the bible there is nothing mentioning him.

Uh, no, even if you disregard the bible and believe it doesn't represent historical truth, there is historical proof that a guy named Jesus existed in the specific time period, who was crucified by Poncio Pilatos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Jesus was a alot more knowledgable about things than people realize. Unfortuneately, some of the quotes that is attributed to him are not used in the proper context. For example, Jesus is known to have told people who were slapped by a ROman soldier to turn the other cheek. The actual reason for this is not to ignore the situation and not retaliate, as how it is often translated, but to let the soldier cause himself issues. Back in those days, the soldiers were allowed to hit someone, BUT - only once. Any more than they and the soldier would be disciplined. Turning the other cheek was in fact taunting the soldier, daring him to strike again and risk being punished by his superiors if he is caught.

 

As a note, yes, according to actual records kept that were discovered from those days, Jesus is an actual historical figure. It might surprise people just how accurate the Jewish people were when it came to recordkeeping, not to mention the Romans themselves. ^.^

While he may not have been the Son of God, there's little doubt that historical Jesus existed. 

It seems their abilities are based on how they died, or why they hate life, so if the Black King isn't Jesus, then he would have to be either someone believed to be the Second Coming or someone who received the same treatment at the end. Tibetan monks get reincarnated all the time with healing abilities, could one of the 'golden' children have grown to hate Humanity?

So far all Drifters on both sides were historical characters, Jesus is a mythical one. Bysides the bible there is nothing mentioning him.

Also I've been thinking about the Black King, there is someone that matches the warfare knowledge, crucifixion and the caucasian skin.  Spartacus, imagine that you ''died'' for the end of slavery, change worlds and the humans there treat other intelligent species so badly, anyone could snap and become to hate humankind, specially since Hitler was there.

 

On the other hand, maybe simply is Jesus, but following the theory that he was saved and survived the cross and travel East, so could learn warfare (if he already converted in the vengeful personality)

I've been thinking about the significance of the dragonfly on the Black King's staff. In Christian imagery, a dragonfly represents Jesus triumphing over the Devil...but of course dragonflies are highly symbolic in Japan too.

Some historical figures that come to mind: 

Judas? Could explain his jaded attitude towards humanity given how 'warmly' he was received after his betrayal. Watching Jesus could have given him insight into leading people but it still doesn't explain his knowledge of warfare.

Skilled in warfare? Perhaps it's the Prophet Mohammed.

Black King may not be Jesus. Could very easily be someone we have not considered at all. Certtainly not denying it could be him, but wouldn't be bad to look at other historical figures and see who else can fit the mold.

 

Whoever Black King is, he has a sense of how to use military. No question about it. What about Alexander the Great? The Greek training certainly would have trained him is quite a few skills that would explain some of the miracles, along with his obvious and well-known military background. Hitler is definitely more far-fetched, but it is possible his interest into the occult gave him new abilities if he appeared in this world. Then you have a really nasty possibility of it being a former Pope or even bakc further into history as a former leader of the Templars (remember, they also ran hospitals).

Some historical figures that come to mind: 

Judas? Could explain his jaded attitude towards humanity given how 'warmly' he was received after his betrayal. Watching Jesus could have given him insight into leading people but it still doesn't explain his knowledge of warfare.

oi there's a double upload on chapter 55

I once read a theory that the Black King could be Martin Luther King. It's something to think about.

Unfortuneately, if you check, the Black King is not dark-skinned, so he is most likely more asian or caucasian.

It seems their abilities are based on how they died, or why they hate life, so if the Black King isn't Jesus, then he would have to be either someone believed to be the Second Coming or someone who received the same treatment at the end. Tibetan monks get reincarnated all the time with healing abilities, could one of the 'golden' children have grown to hate Humanity?

We need more Japanese Drifters, they are hilarious. 

I once read a theory that the Black King could be Martin Luther King. It's something to think about.


Search Comics