Shiki "rivalled" Roger and Whitebeard. But people forget that Roger only had one ship, as did Whitebeard at the time, while Shiki had a small army, and an Armada of 50 ships. The might of the Roger pirates was so great that Shiki losing just half of his fleet was enough for their battle to be considered a draw. Imagine Shiki trying to fight against the Roger Pirates without his army behind him. Shiki is definitely a Top Tier, but in terms of individuality, Roger was stronger.
Powers & Abilities Shiki statement in the Databook blue deep
- Thread starter Roronoa 3D2Y
- Start date
OP fans need to stop using everything they find on the internet and use it as canon.....this is just someone writing a section in the magazine *speculating* about what the Yonko bounties could be. It's not a canon source like the vivrecard, sbs, etc
Basically what you did was similar to using some random guy's theory on the internet and then using it as proof for your own argument lol.
Basically what you did was similar to using some random guy's theory on the internet and then using it as proof for your own argument lol.
Disagree. An armada is overrated when we've seen someone like Mihawk casually sink like 40+ ships iirc. Shiki has not a single formidable subordinate while Roger had Rayleigh and Gaban.
Rayleigh alone is more than enough to make up for the lack of manpower when he could literally knock them out with his CoC alone.
Shiki had to be roughly equal to Roger to just compete in that battle.
Rayleigh alone is more than enough to make up for the lack of manpower when he could literally knock them out with his CoC alone.
Shiki had to be roughly equal to Roger to just compete in that battle.
The fact that Shiki needed an Armada of 50 ships, and an army behind him to be considered a a rival to Roger and Whitebeard, who had only a fraction of the manpower as him.
If Shiki was comparable to Roger individually, then the fact that his forces >>>> Roger's force, would have meant he was the ruler of the Seas, not Roger, but that wasn't the case, was it? Despite lacking in overall manpower compared to Shiki, it was Roger ruled the Seas, not Shiki.
If Shiki was comparable to Roger individually, then the fact that his forces >>>> Roger's force, would have meant he was the ruler of the Seas, not Roger, but that wasn't the case, was it? Despite lacking in overall manpower compared to Shiki, it was Roger ruled the Seas, not Shiki.
