# Was Itachi likely the most powerful 13 year old in Naruto?



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Discuss.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Tsunade was dishing out Byakogou Sakura like punches as a toddler, if Hashirama's statement is anything to go by


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Tsunade was dishing out Byakogou Sakura like punches as a toddler, if Hashirama's statement is anything to go by


----------



## Alex Payne (Jan 26, 2016)

Very likely. Only powerhouses with unknown progress like Sakumo, Hanzo and Hiruzen could potentially be roughly as strong at 13.


----------



## ThatGreekLady (Jan 26, 2016)

In my opinion, kid Kakashi also seemed very powerful.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Hiruzen was chosen for Hokage while he looked about 16, though I hear the DB claimed that he was around 40...

I think that it's very possible that Hiruzen was stronger at that age.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 26, 2016)

wasn't minato like 10 years old when he tracked and took out mutiple jonin?


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> wasn't minato like 10 years old when he tracked and took out mutiple jonin?



That's a good feat but Minato's strength at a young age wasn't really highlighted, he was known more for how effective he was in the war. Not even Hashirama or Madara were hyped for their strength at 12/13.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> That's a good feat but Minato's strength at a young age wasn't really highlighted, he was known more for how effective he was in the war. Not even Hashirama or Madara were hyped for their strength at 12/13.


does itachi have a better feat than minato?


----------



## Transcendent Shinobi (Jan 26, 2016)

I would have to give it to kid Nagato. He may not have fully developed his powers by then but he definitely had mastery of all 5 elements and if you pissed him off he probably made it rain with your blood,


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> does itachi have a better feat than minato?



Depends on how old you think he was when he defeated Orochimaru and Deidara. He definitely had MS though.



Transcendent Shinobi said:


> I would have to give it to kid Nagato. He may not have fully developed his powers by then but he definitely had mastery of all 5 elements and if you pissed him off he probably made it rain with your blood,



Completely forgot about Nagato.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> Depends on how old you think he was when he defeated Orochimaru and Deidara. He definitely had MS though.


was he 11 when he fought oro? casting genjutsu on deidara wasn't really anything special.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> was he 11 when he fought oro? casting genjutsu on deidara wasn't really anything special.



Timeline is confusing, Itachi was reportedly 13 when he was ANBU captain but fought Orochimaru when he was 11? It doesn't make sense. 

I think that nearly getting a Kage level to blow himself up his more impressive than Minato's feat of wiping out those Jonin in all honesty. But yeah, Minato was obviously no scrub.


----------



## Senjuclan (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> That's a good feat but Minato's strength at a young age wasn't really highlighted, he was known more for how effective he was in the war. Not even Hashirama or Madara were hyped for their strength at 12/13.



You guys are just down right funny to me. Hype this, hype that. Hype is a function of story telling not a measure of the author's intent. Do you know how strong Hagoromo was at 13?


----------



## Saru (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachi for sure.

Minato probably wasn't far behind at this point. Kakashi was impressive, but he wasn't trolling Sannin at 13.

Nagato only used the Rinnegan to the fullest extent when his loved ones were hurt or killed. He was a little rough around the edges.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Senjuclan said:


> You guys are just down right funny to me. Hype this, hype that. Hype is a function of story telling not a measure of the author's intent. Do you know how strong Hagoromo was at 13?



That's funny, Manga> Hype of course but there's nothing that contradicts Itachi's hype. If Fugaku told Itachi that he could solo Hashirama obviously I wouldn't take it seriously. I'm not really one for hype but Itachi had MS at that point so yeah, it's not only hype that I'm basing this on.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> Timeline is confusing, Itachi was reportedly 13 when he was ANBU captain but fought Orochimaru when he was 11? It doesn't make sense.
> 
> I think that nearly getting a Kage level to blow himself up his more impressive than Minato's feat of wiping out those Jonin in all honesty. But yeah, Minato was obviously no scrub.



he definitely didn't look 11 

deidara was definitely not kage level there. more like a over confident brat with no battle sense whatsoever.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> he definitely didn't look 11
> 
> deidara was definitely not kage level there. more like a over confident brat with no battle sense whatsoever.



Yeah, I'm not sure if they rectified the timeline. He didn't look 13 when he slaughtered his clan either but I'm sure that he couldn't have been 11 when he killed Orochimaru.

If he was powerful enough to catch Akatsuki's attention I'd say that he's no run of the mill Jonin. We don't know when Deidara and Itachi had their encounter though, I think.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 26, 2016)

maybe they saw the potential in his abilities. mei would rape his ass.


----------



## ~VK~ (Jan 26, 2016)

Probably, but sasuke could've been a lot stronger at that age had he chosen to kill naruto at the VotE and gain MS. Damn, I wonder how truly strong CS2+MS sasuke would've been.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 26, 2016)

Without a shadow of doubt. 

I'd say he was also the strongest 21 year old, bar Sauce and Naruto.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


>



Viz says "Jutsu instincts and sharpness"


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Viz says "Jutsu instincts and sharpness"



Lol, even if Tsunade actually said that Kabuto was stronger I wouldn't believe it.


----------



## Senjuclan (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> That's funny, Manga> Hype of course but there's nothing that contradicts Itachi's hype. If Fugaku told Itachi that he could solo Hashirama obviously I wouldn't take it seriously. I'm not really one for hype but Itachi had MS at that point so yeah, it's not only hype that I'm basing this on.



Hype means nothing to me in assessing comparative strength. A relevant ninja is going to get more hype than a non relevant ninja even when the irrelevant ninja is stronger. My point is saying that Itachi was the strongest at 13 is laughable because we don't know how strong a number of other ninjas were strong at 13

My answer to this question is a humble "I DON'T KNOW". I don't know because there is no way to know


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Senjuclan said:


> Hype means nothing to me in assessing comparative strength. A relevant ninja is going to get more hype than a non relevant ninja even when the irrelevant ninja is stronger. My point is saying that Itachi was the strongest at 13 is laughable because we don't know how strong a number of other ninjas were strong at 13
> 
> My answer to this question is a humble "I DON'T KNOW". I don't know because there is no way to know



There's no way to know for sure but clearly Itachi was emphasised to be strong at a young age moreso than other Ninja. I'm not saying that he was the strongest 13 year old but from what we know it's possible, there's obviously no way to know for sure.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

13 year old Itachi isnt all that - he just caught a weakened version of Orochimaru off guard. So if Itachi surprises and injures Rusty Tsunade does that make him God? No. That puts him at Part 1 Kabuto level or lower. The same logic applies to Orochimaru. Conclusion: 13 year Old Itachi = Part 1 Kakashi < 19 year old Itachi. Is that fair enough? Yeah? Then close this wank thread now. I'm getting tired of all this.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Viz says "Jutsu instincts and sharpness"



Exactly. He just wants to sabotage Tsunade's strength when in reality he cant. Kabuto had better jutsu skill and sharpness. Don't be silly @Itachi. His strength isnt better that Prime Tsunade. If you take that scan literally then Kabuto > Byakugo Sakura in terms of raw physical strength. Be sensible @Itachi.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> 13 year old Itachi isnt all that - he just caught a weakened version of Orochimaru off guard. So if Itachi surprises and injures Rusty Tsunade does that make him God? No. That puts him at Part 1 Kabuto level or lower. The same logic applies to Orochimaru. Conclusion: 13 year Old Itachi = Part 1 Kakashi < 19 year old Itachi. Is that fair enough? Yeah? Then close this wank thread now. I'm getting tired of all this.



What are you talking about? Orochimaru was the one that instigated the fucking attack. Fuck it man, I'm not arguing with you when it comes to Orochimaru.


----------



## Senjuclan (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> There's no way to know for sure but clearly Itachi was emphasised to be strong at a young age moreso than other Ninja. I'm not saying that he was the strongest 13 year old but from what we know it's possible, there's obviously no way to know for sure.



The author never said Itachi was stronger than the sannin at 13 or Itachi was stronger than any jinchiruki at 13. He actually never compared him to anyone at 13. You guys are just extrapolating stuff without substantiation


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Senjuclan said:


> The author never said Itachi was stronger than the sannin at 13 or Itachi was stronger than any jinchiruki at 13. He actually never compared him to anyone at 13. You guys are just extrapolating stuff without substantiation



Did I ever say that though? I'm just saying that he seems to have been irregularly strong at age 13 compared to most other characters. This thread is mostly speculation, that's why the title says 'likely'.


----------



## Ghoztly (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachi was the strongest at that age. Nagato was 'potentially' but Itachi was leading ANBU squads, killing people intentionally, had complete mastery over all of the fundamentals and his sharingan. He wrecked a damn sannin casually. Talk about overhype, it makes me think that kishi honestly didn't think about the transmigrant shit until he was actually in the middle of writing part 2, it's hard to beat the kind of genius Itachi or Minato exhibited. Kakashi came close.

He also had MS by this point.

Nagato just didn't have mastery over his Rinnegan yet.


----------



## Senjuclan (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> Did I ever say that though? I'm just saying that he seems to have been irregularly strong at age 13 compared to most other characters. This thread is mostly speculation, that's why the title says 'likely'.



You said the below

but clearly Itachi was emphasised to be strong at a young age moreso than other Ninja.

Except the author never explored Itachi at age 13. you guys are going off based on a fight with Orochimaru and extrapolating


----------



## hbcaptain (Jan 26, 2016)

-Minato killed 3 Kumo Jonins .
-Itachi fodderized Oro .
-Nagato was learning low/average elementar Jutsu .
-Madara and Hashirama were able to kill adult fodders form their opposite clan .

Well , it's really difficult but I would say Itachi has the best feats .


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Senjuclan said:


> You said the below
> 
> but clearly Itachi was emphasised to be strong at a young age moreso than other Ninja.
> 
> Except the author never explored Itachi at age 13. you guys are going off based on a fight with Orochimaru and extrapolating



Nah, Itachi's skill was emphasised before he was even 13. I can't see anyone else joining the ANBU at age 11 except maybe Minato. Plus, Itachi had MS at 13 too.


----------



## Ghoztly (Jan 26, 2016)

Lets put it this way, Itachi would have destroyed Madz or Hashi at the same age, that's how genius he was. Madara didn't even awaken his normal sharingan until he was around that age.

Itachi did it at 8.

Just more reason why alot of people think he completely took the series in a different direction in part 2. Hence stuff like Edo Hashirama/Tobirama in part 1 being nowhere near what we saw in part 2.

The Akatsuki leader, Itachi, Minato, and perhaps the sannin were probably going to originally be the definition of what top tier was.

This is all personal opinion of course, but I am sure others share it.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Okay excuse me while I ramble and do some math. 


Itachi was anbu captain at 13, meaning the Uchiha massacre couldn't have happened until after 13. Beginning of part 1 the databook says Itachi is 18. Later on in the manga Kishi writes Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1 happened... Which would make Itachi 11. 



The only logical conclusion I can come up with is "lol databook" and ignoring Itachi's databook age. The Kyuubi attack took place 12 years before part 1 started, which if we go by databook age then Itachi would be 6... To make things make sense we'd have to bump up his age a little. He'd have to be at least 8 during the attack for him to be Anbu Captain at 13. So Itachi would be 20 years old during Part 1, and not 18. I do think we can bump up his age a few more because I don't think he was anbu captain for only a few weeks or months. We can even give even more wiggle room considering he didn't look 13 when he fought Orochimaru. So he could be 9 or 10 when the Kyuubi attack happened, which would make him 21 or 22 beginning of part 1. 

I think we can make the timeline work if we ignore databook ages, and graduation ages(Kakashi chunin exams flashback hurt so bad, and lol at Hiruzen being Hokage at 40)


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

Itachі said:


> What are you talking about? Orochimaru was the one that instigated the fucking attack. Fuck it man, I'm not arguing with you when it comes to Orochimaru.



I know he initiated it but he tried to take his body and got got in a genjutsu while he was in a weakened condition due to needing a new body. That doesnt equate to beating a healthy Orochimaru in straight up combat where Orochimaru is actually using combat techniques.


----------



## Ghoztly (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Okay excuse me while I ramble and do some math.
> 
> 
> Itachi was anbu captain at 13, meaning the Uchiha massacre couldn't have happened until after 13. Beginning of part 1 the databook says Itachi is 18. Later on in the manga Kishi writes Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1 happened... Which would make Itachi 11.
> ...



My brain...lol, yeah I have no idea. So many plot holes and potential plot holes, this just furthers my argument that Kishi lost his mind several times.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Okay excuse me while I ramble and do some math.
> 
> 
> Itachi was anbu captain at 13, meaning the Uchiha massacre couldn't have happened until after 13. Beginning of part 1 the databook says Itachi is 18. Later on in the manga Kishi writes Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1 happened... Which would make Itachi 11.
> ...


Kishi was tryng to wank but he failed. See the extent hes willing to go to just to fap to Itachi. He'll go as far as to create plotholes in a once perfect manga. I dont care what anyone says. Itachi was 22 in part 1 s therefore when Uchiha massacre occured he was 17, same age Naruto was when he soloed the war lol. The guy who made this thread just relies solely on databook cos it suits his fantasy. You cant ignore the manga. Manga > DB and according to manga Itachi was 16-17 when he soloed the clan. And no one should say that makes a plothole in Sasuke's age because its itachi's age that got retconned, not Sasuke's.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Izaya, don't bait people. That's just like asking to get banned.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> Kishi was tryng to wank but he failed. See the extent hes willing to go to just to fap to Itachi. He'll go as far as to create plotholes in a once perfect manga. I dont care what anyone says. Itachi was 22 in part 1 s therefore when Uchiha massacre occured he was 17, same age Naruto was when he soloed the war lol. The guy who made this thread just relies solely on databook cos it suits his fantasy. You cant ignore the manga. Manga > DB and according to manga Itachi was 16-17 when he soloed the clan. And no one should say that makes a plothole in Sasuke's age because its itachi's age that got retconned, not Sasuke's.




Actually if we're saying Itachi was 22 in part 1, then he'd be 15 when he soloed his clan and joined Akatsuki, and probably 15-16 when he defeated Orochimaru. 

Doing this doesn't effect Sasuke's age, it just creates a bigger age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. They'd be 10 years apart instead of 6.

edit: *@Izaya* *@Itachi*

Just stop replying to each other.


----------



## Ghoztly (Jan 26, 2016)

Didn't Kakashi state Itachi was leading the ANBU at 13? Was that anime only? Or manga? Ugh. I have to go back and read their fight.
Sigh. The haters are worse than fans now.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Actually if we're saying Itachi was 22 in part 1, then he'd be 15 when he soloed his clan and joined Akatsuki, and probably 15-16 when he defeated Orochimaru.
> 
> Doing this doesn't effect Sasuke's age, it just creates a bigger age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. They'd be 10 years apart instead of 6.


My point Exactly.



> edit: *@Izaya* *@Itachi*
> 
> Just stop replying to each other.







Ghoztly said:


> Didn't Kakashi state Itachi was leading the ANBU at 13? There goes the 17 argument.
> 
> Sigh. The haters are worse than fans now.



Itachi was 22 in part 1. Uchiha massacre occured 5 years prior to this. Do the maths. i dont care about databook wank. The ANBU hype statement was just another example of that wank anyway so what? He was 13 when he led ANBU then 4 years later he massacred the clan. Or do you want to tell me both happened in the same year?


----------



## Itachі (Jan 26, 2016)

Kakashi did say that Itachi was the ANBU Captain at 13, he warned Kurenai & Asuma about it during their battle.

<snip>


----------



## Ghoztly (Jan 26, 2016)

Apparently Itachi looked the same age after going through puberty for four years. 17 or 13 who cares he never ages.

What a genius, such talent.


----------



## Matty (Jan 26, 2016)

I'm sure 13 year old madara was a boss. Nagato is stronger but he wasn't consistent. Minato and Itachi are likely on the same level


----------



## Itachi san88 (Jan 26, 2016)

Mh, i don't know...maybe? with ms probably yes. And people who can read the Manga will know that Itachi was 13 in the Uchiha massacre lol


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 26, 2016)

<snip>

On topic anyway ...
@Matty1991: Minato and Itachi arent equals. Itachi said hes weaker than Jiraiya who said hes weaker than Minato. Stop ignoring the manga.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> wasn't minato like 10 years old when he tracked and took out mutiple jonin?



I'd peg Oro >>> a couple of Anbu level ninja. Kabuto could take them out with ease.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Actually if we're saying Itachi was 22 in part 1, then he'd be 15 when he soloed his clan and joined Akatsuki, and probably 15-16 when he defeated Orochimaru.
> 
> Doing this doesn't effect Sasuke's age, it just creates a bigger age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. They'd be 10 years apart instead of 6.



He was 18 in pt. 1. Why would he have been randomly 4 years older? Am I missing something?


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> He was 18 in pt. 1. Why would he have been randomly 4 years older? Am I missing something?



Yes, my post right before this one. 



> Okay excuse me while I ramble and do some math.
> 
> 
> Itachi was anbu captain at 13, meaning the Uchiha massacre couldn't have happened until after 13. Beginning of part 1 the databook says Itachi is 18. Later on in the manga Kishi writes Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1 happened... Which would make Itachi 11.
> ...



Itachi can't be the anbu at the age of 13, and beat Orochimaru at the age of 11. That's a clear contradiction, however it stops being a contradiction if we age up Itachi. Itachi's age was only stated in databook...

The same databook that completely contradicts Kakashi's chunin exams flashback

The same databook that states Hiruzen was in his forties when Tobirama died. 

I'm throwing databook out the window here. The timeline doesn't work at all if Itachi is 18 in part 1, the youngest he could be is 20 for it to make sense, but that would mean he wasn't Anbu captain for long.


----------



## Eliyua23 (Jan 26, 2016)

I'm going to guess the massacre happened when Itachi was around 14-15 when he acquired MS and joined atakuksi his look , build and appearance were very similar to Sasuke's and Naruto's in pt 2 now contradictions with his age run amock, but why make a 11 yr old that tall when it  doesnt fit with how the other characters were drawn .

What Minato and Itachi did aren't really that impressive and isn't something that naruto and Sasuke wouldn't be capable off to my knowledge they beat up fodder they weren't facing other geniuses and talent like Gaara, Sasuke, Naruto were facing each other


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Yes, my post right before this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Itachi's databook age doesn't get thrown out because of wonky timeline on another person part. We have clear age for him in an official book. Oro leaving Akatsuki 7 years before pt. 1 is clearly just an oversight by Kishi. 

With Obito there are explicit examples and situations that are just impossible or down right ridiculous like him coming up to 17 year old Ame Trio despite them being like Minato's age..A 2 year gap in a tertiary relationship between Itachi and Orochimaru is not really a large margin of error enough to Fanfic his age IMO.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Yes, my post right before this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd rather go with the databook than go with arbitrary values thrown in by the fans.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> Itachi's databook age doesn't get thrown out because of wonky timeline on another person part. We have clear age for him in an official book. Oro leaving Akatsuki 7 years before pt. 1 is clearly just an oversight by Kishi.



Databook is always secondary to manga. Itachi's age was never stated anywhere in the manga. Since the databook is contradicting the manga, the databook is getting thrown out. 



> With Obito there are explicit examples and situations that are just impossible or down right ridiculous like him coming up to 17 year old Ame Trio despite them being like Minato's age..A 2 year gap in a tertiary relationship between Itachi and Orochimaru is not really a large margin of error enough to Fanfic his age IMO.



I said at the very least he would be 20 in part 1, because again it is impossible for him to fight Orochimaru at the age of 11. 



Grimmjowsensei said:


> I'd rather go with the databook than go with arbitrary values thrown in by the fans.



Well I can't force you to believe anything, so whatever floats your boat dude. You and I both know that Itachi wasn't in Akatsuki at the age of 11 while becoming anbu captain at the age of 13.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Databook is always secondary to manga. Itachi's age was never stated anywhere in the manga. Since the databook is contradicting the manga, the databook is getting thrown out.


No because as I already explained you link is not strong enough. Nothing about Itachi's story is inherently contradicted by itself. One statement of by 2 years is not enough to call for his gap in age, which is done by ambiguous math on your end.

If Itachi went back and was like, "yeah I beat Oro at 11" then you'd have a case, but him making a clerical error in Oro's timeline is not enough to go back and retcon Itachi's age. 

If you wanna talk about manga, then we know Itachi killed his family a short time after gaining Anbu captain privilege, he was not Anbu for 2 years. So Kakashi's statement about him being 13 when he killed the clan and fled makes much more sense.

I said at the very least he would be 20 in part 1, because again it is impossible for him to fight Orochimaru at the age of 11. 





> Well I can't force you to believe anything, so whatever floats your boat dude. You and I both know that Itachi wasn't in Akatsuki at the age of 11 while becoming anbu captain at the age of 13.


He wasn't 11. He was 13 when he became captain of Anbu, and then a couple of weeks later was forced by Danzo to take one for the team. He fled and went back to Obito, and Oro saw his eyes when introduced, and shortly after attacked him. 

We both know Itachi was not Anbu captain for 2 years, then fled. We saw Itachi's flashback.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> No because as I already explained you link is not strong enough. Nothing about Itachi's story is inherently contradicted by itself. One statement of by 2 years is not enough to call for his gap in age, which is done by ambiguous math on your end.
> 
> If Itachi went back and was like, "yeah I beat Oro at 11" then you'd have a case, but him making a clerical error in Oro's timeline is not enough to go back and retcon Itachi's age.



So you'd rather erase a manga statement of Orochimaru leaving akatsuki 7 years before the story began then say the databook is wrong, like it's been many times when it comes to age?



> If you wanna talk about manga, then we know Itachi killed his family a short time after gaining Anbu captain privilege, he was not Anbu for 2 years. So Kakashi's statement about him being 13 when he killed the clan and fled makes much more sense.



I didn't say he was Anbu capatin for 2 years, though I do think he was Anbu captain for a little while. You're telling me he was only the captain for a few weeks before leaving? 

Also I don't think Kakashi said the massacre happened when he was 13. 





> He wasn't 11. He was 13 when he became captain of Anbu, and then a couple of weeks later was forced by Danzo to take one for the team. He fled and went back to Obito, and Oro saw his eyes when introduced, and shortly after attacked him.
> 
> We both know Itachi was not Anbu captain for 2 years, then fled. We saw Itachi's flashback.



That was me saying there could be wiggle room because Itachi could have been anbu captain for a while, and because he did not look 13 in the Orochimaru flashback.

Regardless, taking out the wiggle room, he _has_ to be 20 in part 1 for it to make sense. Here are our two choices

1. The manga saying Orochimaru leaving the Akatsuki 7 years ago was wrong, and actually meant 5 years ago
2. The databook is wrong about Itachi's age, just like it's wrong about many characters ages(Hiruzen was not fucking in his forties when Tobirama died, I don't the databook says that he was, I refuse to believe that)

Sorry, for me manga>>>databook every time


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> So you'd rather erase a manga statement of Orochimaru leaving akatsuki 7 years before the story began then say the databook is wrong, like it's been many times when it comes to age?


No, I accept it as a clerical error on Kishi's part. Anyways why must Oro leaving Akatsuki year take precedent? Why not the age matching up with manga statements like Kakashi's and wrote into the databook, a number from Kishi himself? Itachi's age and Kakashi's comments both came in pt. 1. 

also can you link the statement?




> I didn't say he was Anbu capatin for 2 years, though I do think he was Anbu captain for a little while. You're telling me he was only the captain for a few weeks before leaving?
> 
> Also I don't think Kakashi said the massacre happened when he was 13.


Itachi was thrust into Anbu as a means of strengthing his intelligence communication with the leaf about the Uchiha (which the uchiha thought they were doing the opposite of with Itachi.). This was very deep into Uchiha Konoha beef, and very shortly before Itachi kills his clan via the flashback itself.

So by your logic, we must take the Oro timeline, and make Itachi 15 at the time off their fight, despite Itachi slaughtering his clan and fleeing at 13. which means from the time they rose him in the ranks of Anbu to the Uchiha massacre (he fought Oro in the same year he fled likely within a 2 month period at absolute most) he had a 2 year gap of strictly being an ANBU captain.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> No, I accept it as a clerical error on Kishi's part. Anyways why must Oro leaving Akatsuki year take precedent? Why not the age matching up with manga statements like Kakashi's and wrote into the databook, a number from Kishi himself? Itachi's age and Kakashi's comments both came in pt. 1.
> 
> also can you link the statement?



I'm saying if we disregard the databook which contradicts the timeline in other areas, then it isn't a clerical error. Kakashi never said how old Itachi was when he killed his clan. And manga statements always take precedent to databook. Here's the link.

nonsense

I will not accept "Har har har Sasori obviously failed math in the ninja academy" as a rebutal. 



> Itachi was thrust into Anbu as a means of strengthing his intelligence communication with the leaf about the Uchiha (which the uchiha thought they were doing the opposite of with Itachi.). This was very deep into Uchiha Konoha beef, and very shortly before Itachi kills his clan via the flashback itself.



Sure, I'm not sure how that means he was only Anbu Captain briefly. 



> So by your logic, we must take the Oro timeline, and make Itachi 15 at the time off their fight, despite Itachi slaughtering his clan and fleeing at 13. which means from the time they rose him in the ranks of Anbu to the Uchiha massacre (he fought Oro in the same year he fled likely within a 2 month period at absolute most) he had a 2 year gap of strictly being an ANBU captain.



I did say that Itachi had to be at least 20 in part 1, but I personally decided to put in some wiggle room because I don't think he was briefly an anbu captain, nor do I think he looked 13 during his fight with Orochimaru. Feel free to disregard my wiggle room. 

If Itachi was 18 in part 1, and he fought Orochimaru 7 years before part 1, he'd be 11.

If Itachi was 20 in part 1, and he fought Orochimaru 7 years before part 1, he'd be 13. Him being 20 is the lowest age we can put him at for the timeline to make sense. We'd have to make his ascension to Anbu Captain, the massacre of his clan, his joining Akatsuki, and his defeating Orochimaru all happen in the same year, though. Also, again I didn't say he was Anbu captain for 2 years, but I do think he could've been Anbu captain for close to 1 year.

What I'm saying is no where is it shown that Orochimaru attacked Itachi day 1 he joined the Akatsuki, like you seem to be implying. 

Nagato: Hey guyz, here's our new member Itachi. 

Orochimaru: Hey Itachi, let's go for a walk.

Itachi: k

I think Itachi and Orochimaru were in Akatsuki for close to a year before Orochimaru made his move. 

But again, feel free to disregard my wiggle room, that's fine. All I'm saying is that the bare minimum Itachi had to be 20 during part 1, but I personally believe he was 21-22.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> I'm saying if we disregard the databook which contradicts the timeline in other areas, then it isn't a clerical error. Kakashi never said how old Itachi was when he killed his clan. And manga statements always take precedent to databook. Here's the link.
> 
> nonsense


No because we use the databook as canon for other ages and Itachi being 13 is backed up by Kakashi's part 1 statement. 

Also that was literally the end of pt. 1. From Naruto's grad unto the events of end pt. 1 is easily a year, so I'd wager Itachi was 12, which makes the clerical error even more insignificant.



> I will not accept "Har har har Sasori obviously failed math in the ninja academy" as a rebutal.


No. It's called an author oversight as I have stated multiple times already. Kishi is the one who wrote in his age.



> Sure, I'm not sure how that means he was only Anbu Captain briefly.


Because he killed his family very shortly after. He fled immediately after that, and Oro attacked him right after his intro to akatsuki.




> If Itachi was 20 in part 1, and he fought Orochimaru 7 years before part 1, he'd be 13. Him being 20 is the lowest age we can put him at for the timeline to make sense. *We'd have to make his ascension to Anbu Captain, the massacre of his clan, his joining Akatsuki, and his defeating Orochimaru all happen in the same year, though.*


This is essentially what I am arguing.  But idk if I can just change Kishi's original age without explicit fuck up on Itachi's direct timeline. I don't think Itachi was anywhere close to Minato's age during the war, or his Kage reign. He looked much more akin to an older brother seperated by 4 to 6 years rather than 8 to 10, especially in pt. 1.


----------



## Saru (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> We'd have to make his ascension to Anbu Captain, the massacre of his clan, his joining Akatsuki, and his defeating Orochimaru all happen in the same year, though.




pretty sure the manga supports this


----------



## Deer Lord (Jan 26, 2016)

Hashirama/Hiruzen most probably.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 26, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Tsunade was dishing out Byakogou Sakura like punches as a toddler, if Hashirama's statement is anything to go by



So was Itachi. 



BringerOfChaos said:


> Okay excuse me while I ramble and do some math.
> 
> 
> Itachi was anbu captain at 13, meaning the Uchiha massacre couldn't have happened until after 13. Beginning of part 1 the databook says Itachi is 18. Later on in the manga Kishi writes Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1 happened... Which would make Itachi 11.
> ...



I don't get what the problem is. He was 13 as an ANBU captain and when he awoke his MS techniques on the day of the massacre.

Prior to this, perhaps around age 11, we know he met with Obito and relayed this information to Danzo and Hiruzen. As he met Obito, it's plausible he met Obito's organization, Akatsuki.

ANBU and black operations are all about spying and shit. He was spying and interacting with Akatsuki before the massacre, which is when he forced Orochimaru out of the organization.

There was a gap of time, potentially a large gap, when Itachi met Obito and was in ANBU, and when Hiruzen's negotiations failed. It's logical that this gap accounts for ANBU Itachi being Akatsuki.

Or "databook fuckery," whatever. I like the idea of Itachi being a hardcore-as-fuck ANBU agent infiltrating Akatsuki on behalf of Konoha _before_ the massacre even occurred.​


----------



## FlamingRain (Jan 26, 2016)

Obito was a bit stronger.

Besides Obito, Itachi probably had the most drastic power curve of the ninjas in the Narutoverse.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 26, 2016)

It's hard to know how strong anyone is at any age, because Kishi fucked the time-line so bad. Like if Itachi actually beat Orochimaru at 12-13, than probably he was the strongest, but he sure didn't look 13 when Kishimoto actually drew that flashback, which makes me think it may have actually been a-lot older, and therefore has some competition for sure.


----------



## Yoko (Jan 26, 2016)

It's between Obito and Itachi.  The former had training from Madara, had a broken S/T that allowed him to fight on par with Minato, and could casually control the Kyuubi.  The latter paneled Orochimaru without breaking a sweat and could almost certainly replicate Kyuubi controlling feats.


----------



## Santoryu (Jan 26, 2016)

I'm not sure if the author took their ages into consideration. They looked a lot older.

Itachi was definitely one of the strongest 13-year-olds, though.


----------



## Vice (Jan 26, 2016)

All of this is arbitrary when you consider that Obito > Itachi.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 26, 2016)

He's shown the best on-screen displays of strength at the age of 13 with his one-paneling of Orochimaru (or 11, based on which angle you're looking at the manga from). I'll say that.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 26, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> No because we use the databook as canon for other ages and Itachi being 13 is backed up by Kakashi's part 1 statement.



All Kakashi said was he became Anbu captain at 13. Nothing more, nothing less. 



> Also that was literally the end of pt. 1. From Naruto's grad unto the events of end pt. 1 is easily a year, so I'd wager Itachi was 12, which makes the clerical error even more insignificant.



Easily a year? What? 




> No. It's called an author oversight as I have stated multiple times already. Kishi is the one who wrote in his age.



Yes, and Kishi has a lot of these oversights in the databook, as I've mentioned many many times. Databook ages are fucked.



> Because he killed his family very shortly after. He fled immediately after that, and Oro attacked him right after his intro to akatsuki.



I don't think Itachi was Anbu captain for just a week. Maybe saying a year is too much, but I definitely think he was Anbu captain for months. 





> This is essentially what I am arguing.  But idk if I can just change Kishi's original age without explicit fuck up on Itachi's direct timeline. I don't think Itachi was anywhere close to Minato's age during the war, or his Kage reign. He looked much more akin to an older brother seperated by 4 to 6 years rather than 8 to 10, especially in pt. 1.



Even if you are arguing this, Itachi would still have to be at least 20 during part 1. As I said in my last post I personally put some wiggle room to make him older, but even if you disregard the wiggle room he'd be at least 20 for the 7 years prior statement to make sense. Literally all I'm saying is he'd have to be at least 13 during his fight with Orochimaru, and if that is true he'd be 20 in part 1.   Also we're gonna disagree on something, Itachi did not look 18 to me during part 1. Shit he didn't look 6 in the Kyuubi flashback, he didn't look 13 in the clan massacre, or in the Orochimaru fight. 



Saru said:


> pretty sure the manga supports this



Okay, doesn't change my point. I said Itachi has to be at least 20 in part 1 for that to make sense. 



Sadgoob said:


> So was Itachi.



Still wanking your irrelevant novels, I see 




> I don't get what the problem is. He was 13 as an ANBU captain and when he awoke his MS techniques on the day of the massacre.
> 
> Prior to this, perhaps around age 11, we know he met with Obito and relayed this information to Danzo and Hiruzen. As he met Obito, it's plausible he met Obito's organization, Akatsuki.
> 
> ...



"Wank wank wank wank" is all I read. No, Itachi was not in Akatsuki at the age of 11. Go home, you're drunk.


----------



## RBL (Jan 27, 2016)

rock lee was the strongest at the age of 13.


----------



## Savage (Jan 27, 2016)

Yoko said:


> It's between Obito and Itachi.  The former had training from Madara, had a broken S/T that allowed him to fight on par with Minato, and could casually control the Kyuubi.  The latter paneled Orochimaru without breaking a sweat and could almost certainly replicate Kyuubi controlling feats.



I'd agreed with this. Minato if you filter hax eye abilities


----------



## Nikushimi (Jan 27, 2016)

Duh, that's why he's the most powerful character in Naruto.


----------



## Zensuki (Jan 27, 2016)

There is nothing that can compete with Itachi hype


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 27, 2016)

Like I said before the databook was wrong. Stop wanking and go by manga. 22 - 5 = 17. Itachi was 17 years old in this image. But anyway the timeline is messed up because I believe Orochimaru should have been younger than 45 here based on the Otogakure timeline. All we can do is guess Itachi's age or go by manga. Thus, via means of common sense, Itachi was 17 when this happened. And no he wasn't the strongest 13 year old or 17 year old or whatever. Deidara looked a lot younger than Itachi when they fought. That was 8 years before shippuden. Deidara was 11 years old at that time. I doubt Itachi was just two years older than him based on his appearance.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 27, 2016)

Fourth Databook says that Orochimaru tried molesting Itachi seven years before the War Arc.


----------



## Amol (Jan 27, 2016)

Probably Obito.
Not sure though(he was like 14 when he fight with Minato, right?)


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 27, 2016)

Platypus said:


> Fourth Databook says that Orochimaru tried molesting Itachi seven years before the War Arc.


Well the databook is wrong. And the manga is right.


----------



## t0xeus (Jan 27, 2016)

Depends on how old were Madara&Hashirama when they were best fighters in each of their clan, if they were 13 or younger, then Hashirama&Madara are the strongest, followed by Tobirama&Izuna.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 27, 2016)

If this thread was an actual room, the walls would be covered with cum right now.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 27, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> Well the databook is wrong. And the manga is right.



Okay, have it your way and let's disregard the databooks.

*(*) *According to the manga, Itachi made Oro pack his bags . 

This is what we know timeline wise for Itachi using manga only:

, graduates at the Academy
, awakens the Sharingan
, is promoted to chuunin
About half a year after, joins ANBU
, starts acting strange and Shisui is tasked to spy on him
, becomes ANBU captain
_At some point later_, massacres the clan with Obito  and joins Akatsuki ()
(Several months less than) 7 years after the massacre, Itachi and Kisame visit Konoha (going by *(*)*)
, Itachi dies​
That's it. I don't recall the manga giving us the means to determine his age during Part I or II, so I have no clue where you are pulling the numbers 22 and 5 from.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 27, 2016)

*@Platypus*

Pretty much. The only indicator we have when removing loldatabook is that he has to be 13 or older 7 years before part 1 started. I personally lean towards older because I don't think he was Anbu captain briefly, and because he did not look 13 against Orochimaru.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> Like I said before the databook was wrong. Stop wanking and go by manga. 22 - 5 = 17. Itachi was 17 years old in this image. But anyway the timeline is messed up because I believe Orochimaru should have been younger than 45 here based on the Otogakure timeline. All we can do is guess Itachi's age or go by manga. Thus, via means of common sense, Itachi was 17 when this happened. And no he wasn't the strongest 13 year old or 17 year old or whatever. Deidara looked a lot younger than Itachi when they fought. That was 8 years before shippuden. Deidara was 11 years old at that time. I doubt Itachi was just two years older than him based on his appearance.


THIS IS ENTIRELY WRONG!

The MANGA had Part II feature the Akatsuki meet, early on, saying that it had been 10 years since Orochimaru left the organization. Itachi died at the age of 21 (according to the datebook), 21 - 10 = 11 (huge discrepancy here, though because it's known Itachi slew the clan at at least 13 years of age).

Quit making up random numbers to defend your fave.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> *@Platypus*
> 
> Pretty much. The only indicator we have when removing loldatabook is that he has to be 13 or older 7 years before part 1 started. I personally lean towards older because I don't think he was Anbu captain briefly, and *because he did not look 13 against Orochimaru.*


Deidara was 18 when we met him... He was recruited after Orochimaru defected the Akatsuki, and that happened 10 years before we met him in Part II.... Which would make Deidara (mathematically) 8 years old when Itachi and co. recruited him... You cannot hold Kishimoto accountable for his _awful_ portrayal of ages and consistency with that regard. You have to go off the numbers. Playing the "he doesn't look that age" game with Kishimoto is the most baseless, useless analysis because Kishimoto is simply too inconsistent and didn't take the time to take that into consideration, honestly.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> THIS IS ENTIRELY WRONG!
> 
> The MANGA had Part II feature the Akatsuki meet, early on, saying that it had been 10 years since Orochimaru left the organization. Itachi died at the age of 21 (according to the datebook), 21 - 10 = 11 (huge discrepancy here, though because it's known Itachi slew the clan at at least 13 years of age).
> 
> Quit making up random numbers to defend your fave.


Dude the entire time-line is Kishimoto making random numbers up, none of it makes any sense.



> Deidara was 18 when we met him... He was recruited after Orochimaru defected the Akatsuki, and that happened 10 years before we met him in Part II.... Which would make Deidara (mathematically) 8 years old when Itachi and co. recruited him... You cannot hold Kishimoto accountable for his awful portrayal of ages and consistency with that regard. You have to go off the numbers. Playing the "he doesn't look that age" game with Kishimoto is the most baseless, useless analysis because Kishimoto is simply too inconsistent and didn't take the time to take that into consideration, honestly.


Honestly much more likely that he didn't take the exact numbers or ages into consideration when writing certian bits of dialog, then not taking ages into consideration when spending a long time drawing the characters a specific way. I take the fact that Itachi looks older than any of the Rookies in P1 against Orochimaru as a very clear indication that he indeed was significantly older then them, rather than taking any cited numbers to mean anything, considering Kishimoto fucks the numbers up all the time.

Itachi was likely 16-17 when he defeated Orochimaru by the way he looks, as he looks at the very least as old if not older than Part II Rookies.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> You cannot hold Kishimoto accountable for his _awful_ portrayal of ages and consistency with that regard.



Pretty much this. Itachi is supposed to be 10-11 here according to manga. Don't even try to make sense of the Obito-Kakashi timeline.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 27, 2016)

I can hold it against Kishi. 

Pretty sure the manga never explicitly says Deidara's age, so try again.  *Throws databook in trash*


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Dude the entire time-line is Kishimoto making random numbers up, none of it makes any sense.


Agreed, but we have to go with them, unfortunately. ?\_(ツ)_/?



> Itachi was likely 16-17 when he defeated Orochimaru by the way he looks, as he looks at the very least as old if not older than Part II Rookies.


Actually, that can be proven wrong with the manga alone.


Sasuke admitted to being the same age (8) as Itachi when Itachi was likely 13-14 (for being ANBU at the time). [X]
This sets up an age different of around 5-6 years... Which lines up with every other artistic portray of their relationship. [X] [Y] [Z]
With this in mind, skip to Part I when Itachi came back to the village... Sasuke was probably 12 (maybe 13, but for simplicity, we'll go with 12). 12 + (5~6) = 17~18... Which is what the manga supports, anyway, let's look at the original depiction of Itachi during this time. [X]
Itachi definitely looks around 17~18 in that panel when you look at his facial features and his height (younger, even). So, I'd say that that works to some extent.
At this point, Orochimaru had been out of the Akatsuki for "7" years. We'll shave a year since that was said at the very end of the manga. 17 - 6 = 11. 18 - 6 = 12... Which would mean Itachi was around 11~12 when he defeated Orochimaru, prompting Orochimaru to leave.
There's the discrepancy of Itachi becoming an ANBU Captain at the age of 13, so that doesn't make sense... But we already covered Itachi's timelines are shit.
However, if you look at the original depictions and from statements within the manga itself, you can still reach this conclusion. Kishimoto simply sucks at drawing for ages well and consistently. At the time Kishimoto drew the panels of Itachi facing against Orochimaru, he had become used to drawing Itachi as a 21 year old. 
Kishimoto didn't care much to make Itachi look younger when depicting his clash against Orochimaru, clearly.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> I can hold it against Kishi.
> 
> Pretty sure the manga never explicitly says Deidara's age, so try again.  *Throws databook in trash*


We can infer that he was the youngest in the presence of Itachi, Kisame, Deidara, and Sasori... Since it was noted at how young he was... Itachi being probably around 13~14, at the time, means Deidara would be younger than that. So, extreme minimum of 12~13.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Agreed, but we have to go with them, unfortunately. ?\_(ツ)_/?


No we don't, we can disregard a clearly flawed system and instead look at more valid evidence.



> Sasuke admitted to being the same age (8) as Itachi when Itachi was likely 13-14 (for being ANBU at the time). [X]
> This sets up an age different of around 5-6 years... Which lines up with every other artistic portray of their relationship. [X] [Y] [Z]
> With this in mind, skip to Part I when Itachi came back to the village... Sasuke was probably 12 (maybe 13, but for simplicity, we'll go with 12). 12 + (5~6) = 17~18... Which is what the manga supports, anyway, let's look at the original depiction of Itachi during this time. [X]
> Itachi definitely looks around 17~18 in that panel when you look at his facial features and his height (younger, even). So, I'd say that that works to some extent.
> ...


Dude the most likely Number to be wrong is Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki 7 Years ago, as it's contradicted by both Itachi's appearance (Kishi isn't that bad at drawing ages) and Itachi's stated age of becoming an Anbu Captain. And your entire argument rests on that one piece of data. Remove that, and lets' say Orochimaru left Akatsuki 2-3 Years before the start of P1, and Itachi can be around 17-15 when he defeated Orochimaru, which nether conflicts with his appearance nor when he became Anbu Captain, and therefore the much more realistic estimate.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

Turrin said:


> No we don't, we can disregard a clearly flawed system and instead look at more valid evidence.
> 
> 
> Dude the most likely Number to be wrong is Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki 7 Years ago, as it's contradicted by both Itachi's appearance (Kishi isn't that bad at drawing ages) and Itachi's stated age of becoming an Anbu Captain. And your entire argument rests on that one piece of data. Remove that, and lets' say Orochimaru left Akatsuki 2-3 Years before the start of P1, and Itachi can be around 17-15 when he defeated Orochimaru, which nether conflicts with his appearance nor when he became Anbu Captain, and therefore the much more realistic estimate.


Kishimoto _is_ terrible at drawing ages... Aside from making characters taller, even the Konoha 12 barely look different in Part II than in Part I. Same goes for Itachi. Itachi on the night of the massacre looks the same as when he died (using the massacre scenes from Part II). Please provide me legitimate evidence to suggest otherwise. Of the two of us, I'm the only one to provide panels referencing the way a character looks in regard to their age.


----------



## Marsala (Jan 27, 2016)

The biggest discrepancy is Kakashi saying that Itachi became an ANBU captain at age 13. If you ignore it or assume that Kakashi made a mistake, the rest of it fits much better.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

Marsala said:


> The biggest discrepancy is Kakashi saying that Itachi became an ANBU captain at age 13. If you ignore it or assume that Kakashi made a mistake, the rest of it fits much better.


That number also comes from the DB IIRC. But, I agree, without that number there's still discrepancy (unless you disregard the numbers in the Datebook)... That would make Itachi and Sasuke have an age difference of 3 (8 vs. 11), which conflicts with the manga later on.

There's no way to really justify it to try to make it make sense. It simply doesn't fit well, in any way.


----------



## Matty (Jan 27, 2016)

Personally I think Kishi just fucked up and made up a random age. I don't understand how such a powerful person would get stomped by a child. No matter who it is


----------



## Kurak (Jan 27, 2016)

It's just bad Kishi's writing. Nothing more. 13 years old boy kicking Sanin's ass. Why not infant? Anyway, who cares how old he was. Itachi's personality and his entire background is utter trash. Before death psycho maniac, after death literally angel and patriot. WTF. Kishi was wanking so hard to Itachi that in the end he made him pathetic overhyped random. Shame.


----------



## Matty (Jan 27, 2016)

Fucked up. He was such a good bad guy

I don't buy that canon shit btw. I think Oro would beat 13 year old itachi. But adult itachi however is a diff story.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Kishimoto _is_ terrible at drawing ages... Aside from making characters taller, even the Konoha 12 barely look different in Part II than in Part I. Same goes for Itachi. Please provide me legitimate evidence to suggest otherwise. Of the two of us, I'm the only one to provide panels referencing the way a character looks in regard to their age.


He is not that terrible. None of the Konoha 12 even at 12-13 (let alone 11) look like they are 17-18. 

If you want scans, this is not an 11 Yo Child:




Not even a 12-13 Year Old Child, comparing him directly to his own flesh and blood brother, Itachi there is about the same height as Orochimaru, who was 172+ cm, Sasuke in Part I at his tallest was 150-151 cm. Even comparing Itach to thee tallest Rookies, they were only at absolute best around 161 cm. So ether Itachi was a freak of nature, or he was not 12-13, let alone 11 Years old.

That's better scans and evidence that you've provided, and my time-line is only contradicted by one source of data (Orochimaru leaving 7 Years ago), yours is contradicted by 2 pieces of Data, Itachi's appearance and Itachi's stated age of becoming an Anbu Captain. 

My time-line also rests primarily on appearances, while yours rests primarily on state time frames, which has been universally inconsistent and inaccurate. So I wouldn't want to play the, of the two of us game, if I were you, as my stances is supported by more points of data and contradicted by less points.



> Itachi on the night of the massacre looks the same as when he died (using the massacre scenes from Part II).


To me Itachi looks younger and shorter in the flashback then he does in P1/PII or back when he faced Orochimaru. But putting that aside, Itachi looking the same during the massacre doesn't really effect my time-line, it only hurts yours, as my time-line accounts for Itachi being a good bit older when he massacred the clan, while your time-line does not.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

Turrin said:


> He is not that terrible. None of the Konoha 12 even at 12-13 (let alone 11) look like they are 17-18.
> 
> If you want scans, this is not an 11 Yo Child:
> 
> ...


And this is where the issue of having an argument entirely off scans fall flat. To me, the Itachi in that panel looks no different from the Part II Massacre Flashback Itachi. Nothing is noticeable to me to suggest an age difference between the two of them.

Also, Tsunade appears to look 16 in the Epilogue of the series... I'm sorry, but I'm not the only one under the impression that Kishimoto sucks at expressing age. However, this is another discussion because this is going off topic from the original thread material. So, I don't want to discuss this further here. If you want to make a thread in the KL about this issue/difference of opinion, go for it and I will likely respond there.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> And this is where the issue of having an argument entirely off scans fall flat. To me, the Itachi in that panel looks no different from the Part II Massacre Flashback Itachi. Nothing is noticeable to me to suggest an age difference between the two of them.
> .


Like I said doesn't matter, as that only hurts your argument more.



> Also, Tsunade appears to look 16 in the Epilogue of the series... I'm sorry, but I'm not the only one under the impression that Kishimoto sucks at expressing age. However, this is another discussion because this is going off topic from the original thread material. So, I don't want to discuss this further here. If you want to make a thread in the KL about this issue/difference of opinion, go for it and I will likely respond there


Dude Tsunade has a Jutsu that alters her age, so like how is it intellectually honest to use Tsunade as your example lol.

I don't care enough to make an entirely different thread, as to me it's obvious as hell that Itachi does not look 11 there.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo using Tsunade not looking her age to aid his argument 

That's when you know you got nothing.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo just got rekt by Turrin.

Itachi looks nowhere close to 11 there.


----------



## Deer Lord (Jan 27, 2016)

It's like people forget that Kishi cannot into timeline.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> Bloo just got rekt by Turrin.
> 
> Itachi looks nowhere close to 11 there.


Not really, his entire argument (and yours) lie on a character's age by appearance... Which isn't reliable and is entirely ambiguous. You can't really argue objectively with it, but whatever.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 27, 2016)

2

None of these kids look 13 by your standarts. They all look like they are 16 -17

Itachi clearly looks around their age in the Oro flashback.


This is 7 year old Itachi : 2
2

This one is also 7 but looks younger : 2

2
He looks 5 - 6 here when Sasuke was a baby. 

Which would make him 17-18 in part 1.

Which means his databook age is correct.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Not really, his entire argument (and yours) lie on a character's age by appearance... Which isn't reliable and is entirely ambiguous. You can't really argue objectively with it, but whatever.


Dude this isn't a matter of subjectivity, Itachi looks nothing like an 11 Year Old there, nothing at all.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 27, 2016)

Itachi was 13.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Dude this isn't a matter of subjectivity, Itachi looks nothing like an 11 Year Old there, nothing at all.


Yes it is. Subjectivity is when things are not clear-cut. You can claim "Itachi looks nothing like an 11 year old," and someone could claim that they do. There's nothing quantifiably objective about that. It's not a legitimate way to counter a very valid criticism that Kishimoto struggles to properly portray the ages of his characters when drawing them. Turrin, I have some respect for you, but please don't tarnish it by trying to claim that how people _interpret_ ages of a manga character is objective. That's a stupid argument.

Further, the issue also to that is that no one is claiming really that that Itachi is 11 years old. Most people claim he's around 13-14, but point out the flaw with the numbers which would indicate 11 (which is contrary to another number). Literally, your entire point of "he doesn't look 11" is meant to counter a point used to simply express that Kishimoto's timeline is objectively inaccurate and not fully developed.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Yes it is. Subjectivity is when things are not clear-cut. You can claim "Itachi looks nothing like an 11 year old," and someone could claim that they do. There's nothing quantifiably objective about that. It's not a legitimate way to counter a very valid criticism that Kishimoto struggles to properly portray the ages of his characters when drawing them. Turrin, I have some respect for you, but please don't tarnish it by trying to claim that how people _interpret_ ages of a manga character is objective. That's a stupid argument.
> 
> Further, the issue also to that is that no one is claiming really that that Itachi is 11 years old. Most people claim he's around 13-14, but point out the flaw with the numbers which would indicate 11 (which is contrary to another number). Literally, your entire point of "he doesn't look 11" is meant to counter a point used to simply express that Kishimoto's timeline is objectively inaccurate and not fully developed.


Do you think Kishi is more attentive to the character's age when he's drawing him or when he's throwing around different numbers that contradict eachother?

I already know what you're answer's gonna be of course, common sense isn't for everybody.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 27, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Yes it is. Subjectivity is when things are not clear-cut. You can claim "Itachi looks nothing like an 11 year old," and someone could claim that they do..


No they can't 

That's like somebody looking at a picture of a newborn baby, and saying they look 55, and than claiming subjectivity. Just stop.

And if I can loose your respect from telling you that Itachi not looking 11 Years old in that flashback is not subjective, than so be it, because I really don't care about having the respect of someone who is not going to discuss things in a honest and reasonable manner. I know you don't actually think Itachi looks 11 there...


----------



## Hasan (Jan 27, 2016)

Since someone mentioned Sarutobi?

​
The databooks at their finest, folks.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 27, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> Do you think Kishi is more attentive to the character's age when he's drawing him or when he's throwing around different numbers that contradict eachother?
> 
> I already know what you're answer's gonna be of course, common sense isn't for everybody.


I don't think Kishimoto is that attentive to character's ages in general when drawing... His character design is bland in general and not distinctive of age.


Turrin said:


> No they can't
> 
> That's like somebody looking at a picture of a newborn baby, and saying they look 55, and than claiming subjectivity. Just stop.
> 
> And if I can loose your respect from telling you that Itachi not looking 11 Years old in that flashback is not subjective, than so be it, because I really don't care about having the respect of someone who is not going to discuss things in a honest and reasonable manner. I know you don't actually think Itachi looks 11 there...


Turrin, I never even argued that Itachi looks 11 in that picture... In fact, I said that it makes no sense for him to be 11 and that number only came from Kishimoto's own fuck up with the timeline consistency. 

I'm simply saying you can't look at drawings alone to try to decide his ability to depict age. His Databook numbers are very relevant for that discussion and help add (or detract) credibility to portray age. But, whatever, I'm moving on from this discussion.


----------



## eyeknockout (Jan 27, 2016)

age 7
age 11
age 14
age 21

it doesn't really matter, itachi was always sitting on the throne.


----------



## Vice (Jan 27, 2016)

There's Itachi surviving entirely on hype and then Obito proving it with feats.


----------



## The Pirate on Wheels (Jan 28, 2016)

Henge is an academy jutsu because everyone uses it to keep the timeline consistent.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 28, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Turrin, I never even argued that Itachi looks 11 in that picture... In fact, I said that it makes no sense for him to be 11 and that number only came from Kishimoto's own fuck up with the timeline consistency.
> 
> I'm simply saying you can't look at drawings alone to try to decide his ability to depict age. His Databook numbers are very relevant for that discussion and help add (or detract) credibility to portray age. But, whatever, I'm moving on from this discussion.


If you admit Itachi is obviously not 11 there based on his appearance, than obviously you can use drawings alone to determine certain factors about a character's age.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 28, 2016)

Turrin said:


> If you admit Itachi is obviously not 11 there based on his appearance, than obviously you can use drawings alone to determine certain factors about a character's age.


Last post, I never said that. I said I don't think he's 11 there. I never said I think that based on the way he looks. I don't think he's 11 there because he's in the Akatsuki at this point, which happened after he fled the village, which happened after he performed the massacre, which happened after he became an ANBU captain at the age of 13. Has nothing to do with the visual aspect of the drawing.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 28, 2016)

Because who needs eyes? 

Kishi makes a retcon and tells us Itachi was 18 yo when he fought Kabuto? Why not


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 28, 2016)

Lmao when arguing over ambiguos aesthetic design becomes more relevant than obvious plot timeline and manga facts.

He looks no older than his version the night of the massacre, and he's wearing a cloak which fucks up perception of height. Either way, Itachi was one of the strongest 13 year olds.


----------



## Kurak (Jan 28, 2016)

eyeknockout said:


> itachi was always sitting on the throne.



You mean Itachi was always broken and utter trash. He is like failed 
too ambitious project. Grotesque and pitiful.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 28, 2016)

Kurak said:


> You mean Itachi was always broken and utter trash. He is like failed
> too ambitious project. Grotesque and pitiful.



Itachi is King.

*Spoiler*: __ 







Turned Angel.


Turned Christ.

Kishi has spoken through his art.


----------



## Kurak (Jan 28, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> Kishi has spoken through his art.



Kish's wanking, not art. That's what destroyed his manga.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 28, 2016)

And virgin. Don't forget virgin


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 28, 2016)

ImSerious said:


> And virgin. Don't forget virgin



Itachi did have a girlfriend though, and you already know he had late night visits to Konan 

No where near GOATnato's Kushina though


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 28, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> No where near GOATnato's Kushina though


As long as we're on the same page


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 28, 2016)

I'm going to jump on the controversy of Itachi's age bandwagon. 
He was probably older than 5-6 during the Kyuubi incident. Hell, he might be 12 13 even. He probably banged Kushina on daily basis. Naruto is probably his son.
All of this is based on his appereance.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 28, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> He probably banged Kushina on daily basis.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 29, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Last post, I never said that. I said I don't think he's 11 there. I never said I think that based on the way he looks. I don't think he's 11 there because he's in the Akatsuki at this point, which happened after he fled the village, which happened after he performed the massacre, which happened after he became an ANBU captain at the age of 13. Has nothing to do with the visual aspect of the drawing.


I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous then. The dude does not look 11 and your lying to yourself, if you not going to even acknowledge that as a factor in deciding his age. 

But putting that aside, the fact that you say he is not 11, already contradicts the time-line created by Orochimaru having left Akatsuki 7 Years before the start of PI, because than Itachi would have to be 11 in that flashback. So ether way the Orochimaru statement is being contradicted. So you can't acknowledge that it's contradicted out of one side of your mouth, but than try to use it to justify Itachi being younger out of the other side of your mouth. If Itachi isn't 11 there, the Orochimaru statement isn't accurate, period, end of story.

And w/o that there is nothing, and I repeat nothing that gives us Itachi's exact age at the time he fought Orochimaru. We just know it was after he became Anbu (13), after he massacred the clan(?), and before Part I (18). So he could be anywhere between 13~18. The only factor we can use to try to decide this is appearance, and the reality is Itachi certainly looks closer to 18 than he does 13 when he confronted Orochimaru. Now I agree that isn't the most accurate way to judge things in the world, but it's the best we got.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 29, 2016)

Platypus said:


> Only contradicts when you take the databook ages into the equation as well. Manga provides us nothing to determine how old Itachi was during either Part I or II as far as I know.
> 
> So either go with
> [sp=the manga only]
> ...



Yeah to me this effectively settles the discussion. The Data-book clearly says approximately 7 years ago, meaning it was around 7 years before Itachi's death, which would probably make him 15, as he was probably very close to turning 22 by EOS, if he was 19 at the end of PI, and died at 21, w/ EOS being nearly 3 Years since end of PII, by the time everything was said and done. 

But honestly that's the age range I came up w/ for Itachi anyway, just looking on appearance alone, ignoring the 7 Years comment, and considering other stated dates. So whether we ignore it or treat it as a retecon via DBIV, doesn't really change anything imo, as we still ended up with the conclusion that Itachi like was older than 11-13 Years old when he defeated Orochimaru.
----------

On Top, Itachi was very strong for 13 considering he had already activated Sharingan and was a Chunin Anbu Captain, but Kakashi was already a Jonin at that age. So I'm not sure which is better, Anbu Captain or Jonin.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 29, 2016)

^ Surely an ANBU Captain has to be at least a Jonin?


----------



## Turrin (Jan 29, 2016)

Itachі said:


> ^ Surely an ANBU Captain has to be at least a Jonin?


I mean Anbu have been pretty unimpressive.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 29, 2016)

That's not the point, ANBU are among the highest in terms of rank. An ANBU member's going to be more powerful than the average Shinobi, even if most of them are fodder.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 29, 2016)

Based on all the info Itachi was between 15 and 17 when he blindsided a weakened sick killing intent-less Orochimaru


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

The manga says _twice_ what Itachi's age was when he made Orochimaru flee.

1. In part one, Orochimaru said it was 7 years prior.

2. In part two, Akatsuki said it was 10 years prior.

3. Kakashi said Itachi was ANBU captain at 13 before the massacre.

4. Sasuke said the massacre occurred when he was 8, 4 years prior.

5. Sasuke was stated to be 12 when the manga started.

But the same people that bitch about databooks being unreliable in other threads completely disregard the manga (and first 3 databooks) when it suits them. It's hilarious.​


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

Itachі said:


> That's not the point, ANBU are among the highest in terms of rank. An ANBU member's going to be more powerful than the average Shinobi, even if most of them are fodder.



ANBU are hand-selected by merit for black operations, or the most elite missions available, and work directly under the Hokage.

They easily have the most prestigious position in Konoha, superseding all rank structure, with the exception of the Hokage, who just happens to be the only person in the village that can tell them what to do (hence directly under the Hokage.)

This is why Jonin-Fugaku, head of the most powerful clan in Konoha, said he could not arrest or do shit to Itachi, his own 13-year-old. Because Itachi was ANBU. Itachi only had to take shit from the Hokage, nobody else could legally reprimand him.

Yeah, fodder are going to fodder, but if you want to see fodder Jonin look no further than the few that 2-tomoe Obito, the unskilled "loser among the Uchiha," paneled with a kunai no sweat.

Or the 12 "beyond Chunin" ninja that Asuma blitzed. ANBU are just used as fodder most often because they're the most impressive fodder available to the author: black ops badasses.​


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 29, 2016)

Itachi probably ambushed Orochimaru in the can.


----------



## FlamingRain (Jan 29, 2016)

The Anbu were pretty impressive during the Invasion of Pain.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Jan 29, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> The manga says _twice_ what Itachi's age was when he made Orochimaru flee.
> 
> 1. In part one, Orochimaru said it was 7 years prior.
> 
> ...



Does Itachi look 13 in that chapter? Use your common sense.

15 - 17 is all im accepting. Who cares about all these facts that dont come with evidence. The same databook said Hiruzen > Hashirama.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> Does Itachi look 13 in that chapter? Use your common sense.



Does Kakashi look 6 at the CE, or when he graduated the academy?

It was stated _in the manga_ that he was that age. 

Kishi doesn't draw characters ages well, so what?


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

@Sadgoob 

Itachi's age was never stated in the manga. How big Sasuke and Itachi's age gap was also never stated in the manga.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> @Sadgoob
> 
> Itachi's age was never stated in the manga. How big Sasuke and Itachi's age gap was also never stated in the manga.



His age as an ANBU captain (13) was stated. We saw him when he first joined ANBU (didn't "look" < 13 by the way.) He joined he joined before the massacre. The massacre a stated 4 years prior. 

In the page prior, Fugaku says Itachi joined ANBU six months after becoming a Chunin. He became a Chuning at 10. Itachi joined ANBU at 10, and became ANBU captain at 13.

So Itachi was an ANBU at 10.5, and was stated to have fought Orochimaru at age 11. Black ops would be the one to infiltrate Akatsuki, and this is also how Itachi would have discovered Obito.

This is further supported by Hiruzen saying Itachi eventually had to watch over Akatsuki alone after killing his fellows, implying he had watched over them before when supported by Konoha.

This span of 2 years of Itachi being ANBU and watching Akatsuki is when Hiruzen was attempting to negotiate and passify the Uchiha as everything boiled over. This is how Itachi easily contacted Obito.

People wrongly assume that Itachi found Obito a day before the massacre, and was like "Hey bro. Want to kill the clan?" Nope. He knew Akatsuki and Obito via ANBU espionage _before_ the massacre.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Itachi becomes Anbu captain at 13. That's all we know. Kishi doesn't tell us how long the gap was between the massacre and the massacre of his clan. For all we know he could've been Anbu captain for an entire year. We also don't know how long Itachi and Orochimaru were in the Akatsuki before their fight. It sure as hell wasn't day 1.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 29, 2016)

We know via the flashback he betrayed the clan right after becoming promoted in ANBU. Any signifigant gap in the flashback was given a time period notice. So it was 100% under 6 months.

Orochimaru attacked Itachi sometime immediately after seeing the sharingan. It sure as hell wasn't one year. 

Let Go.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Itachi becomes Anbu captain at 13. That's all we know. Kishi doesn't tell us how long the gap was between the massacre and the massacre of his clan. For all we know he could've been Anbu captain for an entire year. We also don't know how long Itachi and Orochimaru were in the Akatsuki before their fight. It sure as hell wasn't day 1.



If you ignore all the databooks. But at that point, you're ignoring so much canon for the sake of denial that it's pointless to debate about anyway.​


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 29, 2016)

Rocky said:


> Remember Mahiru (one-paneled by Minato)


Hey! That doesn't say shit


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

I expect you also want to believe Hiruzen became Hokage in his 40's because the databook says so? Databook is secondary, and if it hurts the timeline it can be thrown away. 

Also, now databook works against you. As platapus pointed out the latest databook changed Orochimaru leaving  7 years before the end of part 1 to 7 years before the end of part 2. Making Itachi 14-15 during the Orochimaru fight. 

Regardless, I still think databook should go in trash can when it comes to the timeline.


----------



## Bloo (Jan 29, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous then. The dude does not look 11 and your lying to yourself, if you not going to even acknowledge that as a factor in deciding his age.


You can't read, clearly (or are just annoyingly dense). I specifically said, in that post you quoted, *that I never said he looked 11* and that *I didn't think he looked 11*. I ALSO, said I don't think he is 11 in that panel.



> But putting that aside, the fact that you say he is not 11, already contradicts the time-line created by Orochimaru having left Akatsuki 7 Years before the start of PI, because than Itachi would have to be 11 in that flashback. So ether way the Orochimaru statement is being contradicted. So you can't acknowledge that it's contradicted out of one side of your mouth, but than try to use it to justify Itachi being younger out of the other side of your mouth. If Itachi isn't 11 there, the Orochimaru statement isn't accurate, period, end of story.


You can't remember anything I've said, either. I already pointed out the timeline is fucked up. 



Sadgoob said:


> The manga says _twice_ what Itachi's age was when he made Orochimaru flee.
> 
> 1. In part one, Orochimaru said it was 7 years prior.
> 
> ...


That's too logical to use in this debate apparently. According to everyone in this thread, the only measure to determine age is the way a character looks. Nothing else. Anything else is just too out there and insane to use. Even numbers and math.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> I expect you also want to believe Hiruzen became Hokage in his 40's because the databook says so? Databook is secondary, and if it hurts the timeline it can be thrown away.
> 
> Also, now databook works against you. As platapus pointed out the latest databook changed Orochimaru leaving  7 years before the end of part 1 to 7 years before the end of part 2. Making Itachi 14-15 during the Orochimaru fight.
> 
> Regardless, I still think databook should go in trash can when it comes to the timeline.



You're contradicting yourself. The manga says Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before p1 and 10 years before p2. It says that twice. So that's when it happened by your own rules, is that correct? 

The databook doesn't contradict Itachi's age. It says he was 21 in p2 at death. He was 17-18 in p1. And 4 years prior during the massacre, he was 13. Which is what Kakashi said. 

It all lines up. You're literally pulling the loophole about him being in Konoha and ANBU longer than 13 out of your ass because you don't like the implication, even though it doesn't make sense.

If he stayed in Konoha and ANBU until he was, say, 15, then that would make him 19 in p1, and 22 in p2. It goes against the databook, without manga support, purely to make Itachi older.

And the whole "that character doesn't look that age" argument went out the window when Kakashi said he was 6 when he became a Chunin, and we saw him in a flashback.

Kishimoto's not great at drawing ages. But he wrote down the number 6, several times. In the manga, in four databooks, etc. In his mind Kakashi was 6. He just didn't draw it awesomely.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> You're contradicting yourself. The manga says Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before p1 and 10 years before p2. So that's when it happened by your own rules, is that correct?
> 
> The databook doesn't contradict Itachi's age. It says he was 21 in p2 at death. He was 18 in p1. And 4 years prior during the massacre, he was 13. Which is what Kakashi said he last knew of Itachi.
> 
> It all lines up.



I didn't contradict myself. 

According to databook Itachi was 18 during part 1. Manga statement says Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years ago part 1. 18 - 7 = 11. This would mean Itachi was 11 when he fought Orochimaru, which is impossible because he became Anbu Captain at 13. He wasn't in Akatsuki yet. So here we have databook already fucking shit up. However, if we remove the databook then things aren't fucked up anymore. 

Realizing the fuck up, the the 4th databook retcons the statement to say Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before the end of part 2, which would make Itachi 15 during the Orochimaru fight. Now this fits, but it can only work if we ignore the manga statements of Orochimaru leaving 7 years before part 1, and 10 years before part 2. So I'm throwing that in the trash. 

So, we know Itachi joined Akatsuki after he became Anbu captain, we just don't know how long after. That would mean Itachi would have to be *at least* 20 in Part 1, and not 18. Because 20 - 7 is 13. Now taking into the consideration that Itachi wasn't Anbu captain for one second, and that I don't think Orochimaru immediately attacked Itachi right when he joined Akatsuki, and that Itachi looked much older during his fight, I think Itachi was a bit older than 13 when he massacred his clan. So I'd say Itachi was 22 during part 1. 

So in conclusion-

Databook IV says Itachi was 14-15 when he fought Orochimaru by retconning how long ago Orochimaru left Akatsuki 

I say Itachi was 14-15 when he fought Orochimaru by thinking Itachi was older than the loldatabook said. 

Either way, rather you throw the databook away or embrace it, the final answer was Itachi is 14-15 during the Orochimaru fight.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> @Sadgoob
> 
> Itachi's age was never stated in the manga. How big Sasuke and Itachi's age gap was also never stated in the manga.



It wasn't stated but shown : 

six

Thats the day Naruto was born. Sasuke must be a couple of months old. 

Itachi graduated the academy @ 7 and activated and mastered his sharingan @8.
So by the time he was 8, he was a proficient shinobi. In which case he wouldn't be @ home and taking care of a baby. Obviously he was younger than 8.

Looking @ the way he is drawn, he could be anywhere from 4 to 7. 
I'm guessing he is younger than 7 because of this : six

This is Itachi still @ the academy So that Itachi is 7 years old. And Sasuke is no longer a baby. 
Sasuke is probably 2 or 3 years old. So actually the age gap between Sasuke and Itachi is depicted perfectly in the databook. Which is 5. Can be even 4. 

My guesstimate is the age differnce between Itachi and Sasuke is 4 to 6, 5 being the best bet.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Was Itachi graduating the academy age stated in the manga or was it just databook? Scan please. 

Also how old do you think Itachi was when he fought Orochimaru? *He sure as hell wasn't 11*, meaning Itachi is older than the databook says, or we have to go with the databook retcon of Orochimaru leaving the Akatsuki 3-4 years before part 1 instead of 7. Either way Itachi would be in the 14-15 mark. There isn't avoiding that.

edit: Also that Sasuke in the flashback is not 2-3 years old


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Was Itachi graduating the academy age stated in the manga or was it just databook? Scan please.


I think it is stated in the databook, but its not that big of a deal. It is stated in the manga that he mastered the sharingan @ 8. 
Which brings me back to the night of the Kyuubi incident. Itachi was @ home  baby sitting. He neither looked 8 nor he seemed like a proficient ninja @ that point. 
Itachi is drawn like a 5-6 year old, which would indicate that that is the exact age difference between him and Sasuke.
Itachi was either 5 or 6 when Sasuke was 0.



> Also how old do you think Itachi was when he fought Orochimaru? *He sure as hell wasn't 11*,



Hard to tell by the looks :  The only thing that might contradict that is Itachi becoming the Anbu captain @ 13. One could argue that Itachi was introduced to Akatsuki before that, kinda of a stretch though.

He looks the same as this : _Bijū Hachimaki_

13 is a pretty accurate estimate. 



> meaning Itachi is older than the databook says, or we have to go with the databook retcon of Orochimaru leaving the Akatsuki 3-4 years before part 1 instead of 7. Either way Itachi would be in the 14-15 mark. There isn't avoiding that.


How is he hitting the 14-15 mark ? 



> edit: Also that Sasuke in the flashback is not 2-3 years old



He looks older, but that is like a thing that Kishimoto seems to do for every character.
All characters look older than they actually are when they are drawn as kids. 

But look @ the toys Sasuke is playing with : _Bijū Hachimaki_
Stuffed animals and very basic lego like shit and toy shurikens.
Those surely are for a very young age group. Thats why 2 - 3 seems accurate for Sasuke's age. A 4 -5-6 year old kid wouldn't play with stuffed animals.

If you notice everything in the manga is in perfect correlation with Itachi's age in the databook, all except the Orochimaru incident. 

According the databook, Itachi was @ the academy when he was 7. 
Sasuke being 2 - 3 in that flashback correleates with it. 

So we can either dismiss tons of evidence to justify one instance or dismiss that instance to justify tons of other evidence ? 

Its obviously the latter. 

According to manga and databook, Itachi was either 11 or 13 when he dispatched Orochimaru. 
I think both numbers make more sense than  "9-10" or "14-15" because at least the numbers "11-13" are from a canon source.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I think it is stated in the databook, but its not that big of a deal. It is stated in the manga that he mastered the sharingan @ 8.
> Which brings me back to the night of the Kyuubi incident. Itachi was @ home  baby sitting. He neither looked 8 nor he seemed like a proficient ninja @ that point.
> Itachi is drawn like a 5-6 year old, which would indicate that that is the exact age difference between him and Sasuke.
> Itachi was either 5 or 6 when Sasuke was 0.



You're really confusing me here, Grimm. One moment you're all "The way Kishi draws their character doesn't have to match their age" and then now you're all "Itachi is drawn like a 5-6 year old". 





> Hard to tell by the looks :  The only thing that might contradict that is Itachi becoming the Anbu captain @ 13. One could argue that Itachi was introduced to Akatsuki before that, kinda of a stretch though.



Yeah, it is a stretch. Itachi was not an 11 year old and in the Akatsuki. 



> He looks the same as this : He was using SM to track Kakashi's position
> 
> 13 is a pretty accurate estimate.



I don't know if it's just me, but he looks younger there than in the Orochimaru fight. 




> How is he hitting the 14-15 mark ?



Because I don't think he was Anbu captain for a short time
+
I don't think Orochimaru tried taking his body day 1 he joined the Akatsuki 




> He looks older, but that is like a thing that Kishimoto seems to do for every character.
> All characters look older than they actually are when they are drawn as kids.
> 
> But look @ the toys Sasuke is playing with : He was using SM to track Kakashi's position
> ...



You sure about the bolded? 



> If you notice everything in the manga is in perfect correlation with Itachi's age in the databook, all except the Orochimaru incident.
> 
> According the databook, Itachi was @ the academy when he was 7.
> Sasuke being 2 - 3 in that flashback correleates with it.



Except Kishi/who ever realized their fuck up, and tried to fix shit in the 4th databook. The 4th databook retconned the Itachi vs Orochimaru fight from happening 7 years before part 1 to 7 years before the end of part 2. Itachi would be 22 at the end of Part 2. 22- 7 = 15. 



> So we can either dismiss tons of evidence to justify one instance or dismiss that instance to justify tons of other evidence ?
> 
> Its obviously the latter.
> 
> ...




No.

According to the databook pre 4th databook retcon he'd be 11
According to the databook after the 4th databook retcon he'd be 14-15
Going by pure manga he'd be 13 or older


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> I didn't contradict myself.
> 
> According to databook Itachi was 18 during part 1.



It says 17-18. He turned 18 during part 1, just like Sasuke turned 13.



BringerOfChaos said:


> Manga statement says Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years ago part 1. 18 - 7 = 11. This would mean Itachi was 11 when he fought Orochimaru, which is impossible because he became Anbu Captain at 13.



He fought Orochimaru before becoming ANBU captain, but after joining ANBU.



BringerOfChaos said:


> He wasn't in Akatsuki yet.



Unless ANBU was infiltrating Akatsuki.



BringerOfChaos said:


> Realizing the fuck up, the the 4th databook retcons the statement to say Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before the end of part 2



Based on a meh translation that contradicts the two manga statements.



BringerOfChaos said:


> So, we know Itachi joined Akatsuki after he became Anbu captain



He officially, full-time joined Akatsuki after leaving the village. We know he _already had contact with Obito_ before the massacre, and thus likely Obito's organization. His ANBU mission brought him into contact with Akatsuki.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> You're really confusing me here, Grimm. One moment you're all "The way Kishi draws their character doesn't have to match their age" and then now you're all "Itachi is drawn like a 5-6 year old".



I explained myself though. Characters look older than they are supposed to, in the flashbacks.
So If Itachi is drawn like a 5-6-7 year old, the chances are he isn't older than that, but probably younger.

My estimation is that he was 5 or 6 when Sasuke was born. Which correlates with his databook age. 



> Yeah, it is a stretch. Itachi was not an 11 year old and in the Akatsuki.



Itachi was a chuunin with fully mastered sharingan @ the age of 10. 
He was using SM to track Kakashi's position
Something 13 year old Sasuke wasn't able to accomplish.

So I wouldn't make assumptions based on prejudices.
He very well could be a pretty powerful jounin @ the age of 11, which would make him eligible for Akatsuki.



> I don't know if it's just me, but he looks younger there than in the Orochimaru fight.



In part 1, Kishimoto drew faces a bit more round. That might be the reason why he looks older, but to me they more or less look in the same age ballpark.  Which again makes sense, considering right after the massacre he left the village and joined Akatsuki. 
So Orochimaru confrontation must have happened around the same time of the Uchiha Massacre.




> Because I don't think he was Anbu captain for a short time


This is based on nothing. 
Itachi could have been promoted to the captain rank and could have commited the Uchiha Massacre the next  day. There is nothing contradicting this.


> I don't think Orochimaru tried taking his body day 1 he joined the Akatsuki


This is also based on nothing.
It could be that Orochimaru went after him after observing him for a week or two.
Why would he need to wait longer ? 
Looking @ how unprepared Orochimaru seemed against Itachi and how easily he was dismantled, one could argue that he didn't even wait for a week.
Orochimaru is a reckless guy. I can totally see him going after Itachi after a day or two.



> You sure about the bolded?


Yes. Especially considering that kids in narutoverse mature alot quicker than the ones in our world. 
At least I know I wasn't playing with stuffed animals @ 4 or 5. I was playing with starwars toys and GI.Joe and shit.
Clearly Kishimoto intended Sasuke to be percieved as a toddler in that flashback.


> Except Kishi/who ever realized their fuck up, and tried to fix shit in the 4th databook. The 4th databook retconned the Itachi vs Orochimaru fight from happening 7 years before part 1 to 7 years before the end of part 2. Itachi would be 22 at the end of Part 2. 22- 7 = 15.



I wasn't aware of that retcon. 
Where can I read that ? 



> No.
> 
> According to the databook pre 4th databook retcon he'd be 11
> According to the databook after the 4th databook retcon he'd be 14-15
> Going by pure manga he'd be 13 or older


Like I said I wasn't aware of the 4th databook retcon.

But if it is actually retconned, then we may as well go with that and assume Itachi was 14-15 when he faced Orochimaru.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 29, 2016)

>OrganicDinosaur
>shoddy translations

Get out of town. 

Even the image blatantly displays the number '7'.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

It's really not a complicated timeline _at all_:



> Age 7 - Itachi stated to graduate Academy, becomes Genin
> Age 10 - Itachi stated to become Chunin.
> Age 10.5 - Itachi stated to join ANBU.
> 
> ...



Does it take a genius to connect the dots that an ANBU member finding Obito before leaving the village might be related to being around Akatsuki and beating Orochimaru before leaving the village?

Is a black ops agent pretending to be Akatsuki while still connected to the village _really_ so far out of the realm of disbelief that people have to straight-up ignore two manga statements about when Orochimaru left Akatsuki in relation to the massacre?

Why can Kabuto be a mole in the leaf village for Orochimaru, but ANBU Itachi can't have initially been an Akatsuki mole for Hiruzen? Would this not explain Itachi finding Obito and enlisting his help for the massacre? It's a very limited logical leap here.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> It says 17-18. He turned 18 during part 1, just like Sasuke turned 13.



The 7 year before statement was made at the end of part 1.





> He fought Orochimaru before becoming ANBU captain, but after joining ANBU.



Again, he did not fight Orochimaru at 11. 





> Unless ANBU was infiltrating Akatsuki.



Itachi was not an 11 year old spy infiltrating Akatsuki. Stop giving me cancer. 





> Based on a meh translation that contradicts the two manga statements.



Man, your bias is shining really hard. 




> He officially, full-time joined Akatsuki after leaving the village. We know he _already had contact with Obito_ before the massacre, and thus likely Obito's organization. His ANBU mission brought him into contact with Akatsuki.



Nothing suggests he was in the Akatsuki pre Uchiha clan massacre. 



Grimmjowsensei said:


> I explained myself though. Characters look older than they are supposed to, in the flashbacks.
> So If Itachi is drawn like a 5-6-7 year old, the chances are he isn't older than that, but probably younger.
> 
> My estimation is that he was 5 or 6 when Sasuke was born. Which correlates with his databook age.



So you're saying Kishi does make age-art inconsistencies, but only when drawing characters older than their supposed to be and never younger? Did you not see the way Hiruzen looked in the Danzo Tobirama flashback? According to the loldatabook, that was supposed to be Danzo and Hiruzen's team in their forties, when they all looked 16. Then look at the Sannin bell test flashback after. 




> Itachi was a chuunin with fully mastered sharingan @ the age of 10.
> eventually
> Something 13 year old Sasuke wasn't able to accomplish.
> 
> ...



I don't think having a fully developed Sharingan makes him Akatsuki eligible. I don't even think 13 year old V2 Curse mark three tomoe Sharingan Sasuke would be Akatsuki eligible. And him being a Jounin at 11 could place his power anywhere between Ebisu to Gai. 


In





> part 1, Kishimoto drew faces a bit more round. That might be the reason why he looks older, but to me they more or less look in the same age ballpark.  Which again makes sense, considering right after the massacre he left the village and joined Akatsuki.
> So Orochimaru confrontation must have happened around the same time of the Uchiha Massacre.



Well of course he'll look in the "same age ballpark", me and you are arguing a difference of a couple of years during Itachi's fight with Orochimaru. 13-15. That already is the same ball park. 




> This is based on nothing.
> Itachi could have been promoted to the captain rank and could have commited the Uchiha Massacre the next  day. There is nothing contradicting this.
> 
> This is also based on nothing.
> ...



Itachi being Anbu capatain for one day and Orochimaru attacking him week 1 is also based on nothing. Both of are views are valid as the manga doesn't really contradict either. 




> Yes. Especially considering that kids in narutoverse mature alot quicker than the ones in our world.
> *At least I know I wasn't playing with stuffed animals @ 4 or 5. I was playing with starwars toys and GI.Joe and shit*.
> Clearly Kishimoto intended Sasuke to be percieved as a toddler in that flashback.



When I was in kindergarten some kids would bring in stuffed animals during show and tell and play time. 

Shit, when I was 5 I would have my stuffed toys, my sisters barbie, batteries, shirt hangers, my tv remote, my mom's brush, and some unplugged cords have an epic ass battle. There was a rivalry between the tv remote and shirt hanger. The tv remote had ice powers and the shirt hanger had fire powers. 



> I wasn't aware of that retcon.
> Where can I read that ?



Platypus posted it back in this thread a while ago. Scroll up/ or check a few pages back. 



> But if it is actually retconned, then we may as well go with that and assume Itachi was 14-15 when he faced Orochimaru.



I agree he was around that age, but I do find it problematic that the databook is retconning a statement made at the end of part 1 and moving it to the end of part 2. Sasori must be stupid if he can't count the years since Orochimaru left peroperly... Then again Sasori doesn't age so keeping up must be hard for him


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> The 7 year before statement was made at the end of part 1.



Closer to the middle. It was right after the Konoha invasion.



BringerOfChaos said:


> Itachi was not an 11 year old spy infiltrating Akatsuki.



Itachi was factually a 10-year-old spy in ANBU. That later infiltrated Akatsuki. Whether he was 10 or 13 when he infiltrated Akatsuki makes little difference. I'm just going with manga statements and given DB age.



BringerOfChaos said:


> Nothing suggests he was in the Akatsuki pre Uchiha clan massacre.



Other than the manga-stated fact that he fought Orochimaru seven years before part one, thus three years before the massacre that was stated to be 4 years prior. What was that about manga trumping databooks? 



BringerOfChaos said:


> So you're saying Kishi does make age-art inconsistencies, but only when drawing characters older than their supposed to be and never younger? Did you not see the way Hiruzen looked in the Danzo Tobirama flashback? According to the loldatabook, that was supposed to be Danzo and Hiruzen's team in their forties, when they all looked 16. Then look at the Sannin bell test flashback after.



Jiraiya doesn't look 50. A doesn't look 50. Bee doesn't look 35. Konan doesn't look 35. Yahiko's body doesn't look 35. So I wouldn't be super surprised if that Hiruzen was 35 and looked younger. 



BringerOfChaos said:


> I don't think having a fully developed Sharingan makes him Akatsuki eligible.



Not that alone. But Itachi was noted as being the most talented of all Uchiha of the time, rivaled only by Shisui, who contemporary Uchiha believed Itachi was capable of drowning like a bad puppy (not knowing Itachi had MS.)


----------



## Bringer (Jan 29, 2016)

Yep. I have cancer now. Thanks, Sadgoob, for ignoring parts of my posts you couldn't refute, and for the cancer.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 29, 2016)

Maybe if you didn't ignore consistent (p1) manga  (p2) that make it clear Orochimaru left Akatsuki before the Uchiha massacre by three years, then you wouldn't have cancer.​


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 29, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> So you're saying Kishi does make age-art inconsistencies, but only when drawing characters older than their supposed to be and never younger? Did you not see the way Hiruzen looked in the Danzo Tobirama flashback? According to the loldatabook, that was supposed to be Danzo and Hiruzen's team in their forties, when they all looked 16. Then look at the Sannin bell test flashback after.



I think the problem is the drawing style of the manga itself. 
As an illustrator, I am familiar with the work. Most manga have a very simplistic style. You'd agree with this when you consider a face is drawn by using 4 5 lines. There is a reason why mainly the hair styles and accessories are the things what seperate one character from another rather than the faces themselves.

So there are only a handful of drawing styles to depict different age groups.
One for very young kids, one for teenagers, one for young adults/middle aged people and one for the elderly. So it is hard to depict a specific age in a manga.

Hiruzen being in his 40's in the danzo flashback is a major blunder though, no excuse for that. 
Because Tobirama says something like young leaves or someshit. 40 isn't young by Narutoverse standarts.



> I don't think having a fully developed Sharingan makes him Akatsuki eligible.



It depends on what he could do with it. If Itachi was proficient with genjutsu too, he likely was because his mentor was Shisui, he certainly would be akatsuki eligible. Remember how he 2 paneled Deidara and Orochimaru.



> I don't even think 13 year old V2 Curse mark three tomoe Sharingan Sasuke would be Akatsuki eligible


.
He surely wasn't. And that version of Sasuke was neither a chuunin nor had perfect Sharingan mastery nor had Itachi's intelligence.
Itachi @ 10 was picked as chuunin, meaning his mental game was around Shikamaru's level.
As a 7 year old he could think like a Hokage, he explored ancient ruins and shit.
Itachi certainly wasn't your regular 11 year old.



> And him being a Jounin at 11 could place his power anywhere between Ebisu to Gai.


In base capabilities he very well could be on par with Kakashi. 
Factor in 3 tomoe genjutsu and possibly MS, then he surely would be Akatsuki level.



> Well of course he'll look in the "same age ballpark", me and you are arguing a difference of a couple of years during Itachi's fight with Orochimaru. 13-15. That already is the same ball park.



Yeah but look at this : That applies to Tsunade, too.
This guy looks older than this : 

That applies to Tsunade, too.
Because Kishimoto's drawing style in part 1 was a bit different. Rounder heads and narrow shoulders. 
But obviously the Itachi from chapter 141 is easily a couple of years older than the one from Kisame or Oro's flashback.
Like I said, don't get too stuck on appereance. First try to consider what Kishimoto is trying to depict and then subtract a few years just to be sure.



> Itachi being Anbu capatain for one day and Orochimaru attacking him week 1 is also based on nothing. Both of are views are valid as the manga doesn't really contradict either.



You are arguing the improbability of those said things and your argument is based on nothing.
I'm only pointing that out. 

I am not claiming  that all of those things happened 1 day later.
I'm just saying that it could have been.
But be my guest if you can refute that.



> When I was in kindergarten some kids would bring in stuffed animals during show and tell and play time.
> 
> Shit, when I was 5 I would have my stuffed toys, my sisters barbie, batteries, shirt hangers, my tv remote, my mom's brush, and some unplugged cords have an epic ass battle. There was a rivalry between the tv remote and shirt hanger. The tv remote had ice powers and the shirt hanger had fire powers.


Well then we had different childhoods.
But we both agree that kids in Narutoworld are expected to mature and reach adulthood alot earlier than our world. 
I mean Itachi was a licenced killer @ the age of 10. 10.5 he was in the special ops, probably killing men every day like its just another day at the office, or school for that matter.

And simply looking @ my nieces and myself as a child, the stuffed animal period was definitely 2 or 3.



> Platypus posted it back in this thread a while ago. Scroll up/ or check a few pages back.


Will do. 
But I am kinda skeptic about taking databook over the manga. But then, I am not against it if it makes sense.



> I agree he was around that age, but I do find it problematic that the databook is retconning a statement made at the end of part 1 and moving it to the end of part 2. Sasori must be stupid if he can't count the years since Orochimaru left peroperly... Then again Sasori doesn't age so keeping up must be hard for him



I'll comment on this after I read a proper translation.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 29, 2016)

Bloo said:


> You can't read, clearly (or are just annoyingly dense). I specifically said, in that post you quoted, *that I never said he looked 11* and that *I didn't think he looked 11*. I ALSO, said I don't think he is 11 in that panel.
> 
> 
> You can't remember anything I've said, either. I already pointed out the timeline is fucked up.


Than what exactly is your proof that Itachi was 13, just pulling that number out of nowhere?



Itachі said:


> That's not the point, ANBU are among the highest in terms of rank. An ANBU member's going to be more powerful than the average Shinobi, even if most of them are fodder.


Same thing can be said about Jonin.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 29, 2016)

I'm just imaging kid grimmjow and chaos holding stuffed animals


----------



## Bloo (Jan 30, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Than what exactly is your proof that Itachi was 13, just pulling that number out of nowhere?


No... I've already stepped through this before.  I'm not retyping it since it's clear you're not even reading my posts in any comprehensive way.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Bloo said:


> No... I've already stepped through this before.  I'm not retyping it since it's clear you're not even reading my posts in any comprehensive way.


I think you just don't know what your point is anymore


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

BTW I read that 4th databook entry.

It really says 7 years prior. So that'd make Itachi 14 during the time of confrontation. But I agree with Goob. Translation is shoddy. 
.
And it contradicts with the manga because it is stated twice in two seperate occasions that the even took place 7 years prior to the end of part 1. 

Hard to be sure if Databook actualy retconned the timeline or it was just a mistake.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> BTW I read that 4th databook entry.
> 
> It really says 7 years prior. So that'd make Itachi 14 during the time of confrontation. But I agree with Goob. Translation is shoddy.
> .
> ...



Where is the second time it was stated in the manga. 

It was stated once in the manga, but than it was also stated Itachi was 13 when he became Anbu captain directly contradicting that; and than he was not drawn to look like an 11 Year Old at all in that flashback, and than DBIV says it was 7 Years from EOS (So 14~15), which fits his appearance and time of becoming an Anbu much better. So yeah


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Where is the second time it was stated in the manga.


I think it was also mentioned once more in part 2. But I may be wrong.



> It was stated once in the manga, but than it was also stated Itachi was 13 when he became Anbu captain directly contradicting that;



7 years ago remark was mentioned after the remark about Itachi's Anbu Captain status though.



> and than he was not drawn to look like an 11 Year Old at all in that flashback,


Like others have pointed out, the looks hardly matter. Most characters look older than their intended age in the flashbacks. 
Most characters have 3 appereances to represent a certain period in time.
For Itachi, there is this little Itachi that represents ages 4 to 7. Teen Itachi that represents 10 - 13 And current timeline Itachi.



> and than DBIV says it was 7 Years from EOS (So 14~15), which fits his appearance and time of becoming an Anbu much better. So yeah



Does the databook specificaly say it was 7 years from EOS or 7 years from Itachi's last listed age ?  Or is it just 7 years with no specification ? 

Because the OD translation is overall very crappy.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I think it was also mentioned once more in part 2. But I may be wrong.


I'm fairly certain your wrong.



> 7 years ago remark was mentioned after the remark about Itachi's Anbu Captain status though.


And by that logic DBIV statement was mentioned after 7 Years ago remark.



> Like others have pointed out, the looks hardly matter. Most characters look older than their intended age in the flashbacks.
> Most characters have 3 appereances to represent a certain period in time.
> For Itachi, there is this little Itachi that represents ages 4 to 7. Teen Itachi that represents 10 - 13 And current timeline Itachi.


Yeah no, the guy looks nothing like 11 Years Old, and not a single other character's age is that misrepresented appearance wise in the entire manga (unless it's intentional, like Tsunade). Otherwise please give me an example.



> Does the databook specificaly say it was 7 years from EOS or 7 years from Itachi's last listed age ? Or is it just 7 years with no specification ?


"約 [Approximately] 7 年 [Years] 前 [Ago]: A showdown with Orochimaru whose aim was the Sharingan"

So yeah it's 7 Years prior to DBIV's Time, which went up to the Kaguya vs Naruto/Sasuke Fight. 

Now if we consider that Naruto turned 17 at the time of the Kaguya fight, and Sasuke is older than Naruto so he'd be 17 as well, and Itachi's is 5 Years Older than Sasuke (as per PI Itachi (18), when Sasuke (13)). Itachi would have been 22, and 7 Years off off 22, puts him at approximately* 15. Which anyone being intellectually honest must admit fits much better with his appearance and doesn't conflict with the Anbu comment ether.

I also think the DB adding approximately is a nod to the fact that even Kishimoto is unsure of whether he's fucking up the time line again


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I'm fairly certain your wrong.


I'll look it up when I have the time.


> And by that logic DBIV statement was mentioned after 7 Years ago remark.



Yeah but you claimed that 7 years remark was contradicted in the manga. I'm just pointing out that it is false. Because 7 year remark came after the other one.

And the databook statement is a blatant retcon or a mistake. So they aren't even in the same category.



> Yeah no, the guy looks nothing like 11 Years Old, and not a single other character's age is that misrepresented appearance wise in the entire manga (unless it's intentional, like Tsunade). Otherwise please give me an example.



Sure : Katon: Gamayu Endan

Thats Kakashi during the chuunin exams, and he looks like current timeline Kakashi, while he has to be in his preteens.




> "約 [Approximately] 7 年 [Years] 前 [Ago]: A showdown with Orochimaru whose aim was the Sharingan"
> 
> So yeah it's 7 Years prior to DBIV's Time, which went up to the Kaguya vs Naruto/Sasuke Fight.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.

But I think it is a needless retcon @ this point. Because Kishimoto initially designed the timeline to fit the manga's original claim of Itachi confronting Oro 7/10 years ago.
So @ some point Kishimoto had no qualms of Itachi destroying Orochimaru @ a very early age.
And he could have retconned it in the 3rd databook when it was actually relevant.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I'll look it up when I have the time.


K



> Yeah but you claimed that 7 years remark was contradicted in the manga. I'm just pointing out that it is false. Because 7 year remark came after the other one.
> 
> And the databook statement is a blatant retcon or a mistake. So they aren't even in the same category.


Coming out after doesn't change the fact that there is a contradiction. It only changes the order; the 7 Year's Ago statement contradicts the 13 Year Old Anbu statement, rather than the Anbu statement contradicting the 7 Year's ago statement.



> Sure : Katon: Gamayu Endan
> 
> Thats Kakashi during the chuunin exams, and he looks like current timeline Kakashi, while he has to be in his preteens.


Yeah that doesn't look like current time-line Kakashi at all, so not buying that for one minute.



> But I think it is a needless retcon @ this point. Because Kishimoto initially designed the timeline to fit the manga's original claim of Itachi confronting Oro 7/10 years ago.
> So @ some point Kishimoto had no qualms of Itachi destroying Orochimaru @ a very early age.
> And he could have retconned it in the 3rd databook when it was actually relevant.


Or Kishimoto just fucked up w/ the 7 Years Ago comment, never intending Itachi to be that young, forgot about, and than someone/something reminded him off the screw up around the time of DBIV and he took the chance to correct it. Personally given more thought on it and considering Kishimoto's lust over parallels, I think he always intended Itachi to be 15 when he confronted Orochimaru, as that parallels perfectly with Orochimaru also attempting to take Sasuke's body when he was 15, and history repeating itself. So Speculating on something like that can go both ways.

With that said I agree that it's a needless difference, because Itachi defeating Orochimaru at 15, doesn't suddenly take away from the fact that he's a great genius and one of the strongest Ninja for his age; the only people that think it does is the Itachi-fandom, because they aren't ever content with "one of" the best it always has to be "thee best" due to power whoring being the main reason you guys like the character in the first place.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Coming out after doesn't change the fact that there is a contradiction. It only changes the order; the 7 Year's Ago statement contradicts the 13 Year Old Anbu statement, rather than the Anbu statement contradicting the 7 Year's ago statement.



The difference is, since the 7 years remark came after, it makes the validity of 13 year old Anbu statement questionable, not the other way around.



> Yeah that doesn't look like current time-line Kakashi at all, so not buying that for one minute.



It looks closer to 30 year old Kakashi than it is supposed to look closer to 10 year old Kakash(6 if databook age is correct)

So again, characters appereances in flashbacks hardly matter, as it is near impossible to represent a specific age with that style of drawing. 
To me the Oro flashback Itachi looks more or less identical to Uchiha Massacre night Itachi, so I can easily put him in the 11-13 year old ballpark.



> Or Kishimoto just fucked up w/ the 7 Years Ago comment, never intending Itachi to be that young, forgot about, and than someone/something reminded him off the screw up around the time of DBIV and he took the chance to correct it. Personally given more thought on it and considering Kishimoto's lust over parallels, I think he always intended Itachi to be 15 when he confronted Orochimaru, as that parallels perfectly with Orochimaru also attempting to take Sasuke's body when he was 15, and history repeating itself. So Speculating on something like that can go both ways.



The chances of Kishimoto making such a mistake to the extend that it effects the integrity of the story is much lower than a numeritical error made in DB. Lets be honest about that.

Also Orochimaru went after Sasuke the first time when Sasuke was 12-13, so if it is about history repeating itself then it makes more sense for Itachi to be 13.



> With that said I agree that it's a needless difference, because Itachi defeating Orochimaru at 15, doesn't suddenly take away from the fact that he's a great genius and one of the strongest Ninja for his age; the only people that think it does is the Itachi-fandom, because they aren't ever content with "one of" the best it always has to be "thee best" due to power whoring being the main reason you guys like the character in the first place.



To me it doesn't make make much of a difference because Itachi had the MS when he was 11-13 and he didn't even use it against Orochimaru. 

It would make a difference if Orochimaru gave 15 year old Itachi a tough fight.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> The difference is, since the 7 years remark came after, it makes the validity of 13 year old Anbu statement questionable, not the other way around..


It makes the validity of both statements questionable. 



> It looks closer to 30 year old Kakashi than it is supposed to look closer to 10 year old Kakash(6 if databook age is correct)
> 
> So again, characters appereances in flashbacks hardly matter, as it is near impossible to represent a specific age with that style of drawing.
> To me the Oro flashback Itachi looks more or less identical to Uchiha Massacre night Itachi, so I can easily put him in the 11-13 year old ballpark.


Yeah that's based on the Obito/Kakashi time line which is the most fucked time line in the manga, so I feel it's more likely that dates are wrong there than appearances.



> The chances of Kishimoto making such a mistake to the extend that it effects the integrity of the story is much lower than just a numeritical error in DB. Lets be honest about that.


It doesn't effect the integrity of the story. The only ones who care about Itachi's exact age are Itachi-Fanboys. Everyone else gets the main points that are being conveyed no matter Itachi's age; 1)Itachi is a genius, 2)Itachi is strong as fuck , 3)Orochimaru left Akatsuki before Part I



> Also Orochimaru went after Sasuke the first time when Sasuke was 13, so if it is about history repeating itself then it makes more sense for Itachi to be 13.


Sasuke didn't beat Orochimaru when he was 13, he beat Orochimaru when he was 15.




> To me it doesn't make make much of a difference because Itachi had the MS when he was 11-13 and he didn't even use it against Orochimaru.
> 
> It would make a difference if Orochimaru gave 15 year old Itachi a tough figh


Than why not just agree that him being 15 is the most likely conclusion based on the data we have.
3 Pieces of evidence place him at 15, 1 at 11, ergo him being 15 is a more likely conclusion.

And I don't care what age you think Itachi can beat Orochimaru at, all I care about is logic, and the logical conclusion is that Itachi was likely 15 there.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> It makes the validity of both statements questionable.



The thing is, Itachi's anbu captain promotion age is less relevant and doesn't effect the timeline in itself. Orochimaru's departure from Akatsuki somewhat does because it is linked to other events.

So I'd say we can just ignore the anbu captain promotion age.



> Yeah that's based on the Obito/Kakashi time line which is the most fucked time line in the manga, so I feel it's more likely that dates are wrong there than appearances.


Why do I feel like whatever I'll post here you'll find an excuse to dismiss it ? 

The point is though, Kisihmoto is aware of the fact that the chuunin exams took place when Kakashi was in his early teens. He drew those pages with the intention of representing a child Kakashi and he couldn't.


> It doesn't effect the integrity of the story. The only ones who care about Itachi's exact age are Itachi-Fanboys. Everyone else gets the main points that are being conveyed no matter Itachi's age; 1)Itachi is a genius, 2)Itachi is strong as fuck , 3)Orochimaru left Akatsuki before Part I


Itachi's age doesn't. But Oro's departure does because it was an even that was signified a couple of times.




> Sasuke didn't beat Orochimaru when he was 13, he beat Orochimaru when he was 15.


And Itachi was always alot stronger than Sasuke because Sasuke was a late blossomer.

And Sasuke didn't actually defeat Orochimaru and sent him running tail between legs. He ambushed a sick Orochimaru and overcame his ritual with his will power.

Those two instances aren't very much comparable.
But Sasuke was 12-13 when Orochimaru wanted to go after him the first time around and he couldn't beause Sasuke didn't make it in time. Otherwise Oro would have sasuke's body @ the end of part 1.



> Than why not just agree that him being 15 is the most likely conclusion based on the data we have.
> 3 Pieces of evidence place him at 15, 1 at 11, ergo him being 15 is a more likely conclusion.



What 3 pieces ? 

1(2 if I can find that scan) evidence puts him on 11(akatsuki meeting).

A couple of other evidences indirectly place him on 13(Hiruzen, danzo and Obito confirming him joining akatsuki right after the massacre). 

Only the latest databook evidence puts him on 15. 




> And I don't care what age you think Itachi can beat Orochimaru at, all I care about is logic, and the logical conclusion is that Itachi was likely 15 there.



There is actually nothing logical about Itachi being 15 there. Thats what you want to believe.

If Kishimoto says he was 9, then he was 9, simple as that.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> The thing is, Itachi's anbu captain promotion age is less relevant and doesn't effect the timeline in itself. Orochimaru's departure from Akatsuki somewhat does because it is linked to other events.
> 
> So I'd say we can just ignore the anbu captain promotion age.


How does it effect the plot if Orochimaru left Akatsuki at 7 Years Before P1 or 4 Years?



> The point is though, Kisihmoto is aware of the fact that the chuunin exams took place when Kakashi was in his early teens. He drew those pages with the intention of representing a child Kakashi and he couldn't.


Here's what I think happened. Kishi said Kakashi was 6 back in the day, before he thought up the parallel between Team 7 and Team Kakashi. Then when he went to draw the Chunin Exams, he made Kakashi, Obito, and Rin the same age as Naruto and Sasuke in Part I 12~13, in-order to once again parallel whore.

Same reason he probably imagines Itachi being around the same age as Sasuke, as it falls in line w/ his parallel whoring.



> Those two instances aren't very much comparable.








> What 3 pieces ?


You just listed them.



> There is actually nothing logical about Itachi being 15 there. Thats what you want to believe.
> 
> If Kishimoto says he was 9, then he was 9, simple as that.


Kishimoto most recently said he was 15, as simple as that then


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

ℜai said:


> Inb4 That is another headband that Itachi using to spy on Akatsuki while he was in Konoha



Because that's _so_ crazy that an ANBU masquerading as a missing ninja could have a second headband with the mark of a nunekin through it. That's so unrealistic for spies to do. 

If you think your "evidence" outweighs both Orochimaru and Akatsuki both stating pointblank that Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki pre-dated the massacre by three years, then you're slow.​


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Because that's _so_ crazy.
> 
> And because your "evidence" outweighs Orochimaru and Akatsuki both stating pointblank that Orochimaru *leaving Akatsuki pre-dated the massacre*.


No one said the bold, on the other hand multiple sources said the massacre pre-dated Itachi joining Akatsuki.

This entire argument is based on one off hand statement that Orochimaru left 7 Years Ago. 

Literally everything else in the manga points to Itachi being older than 11 and now we have a statement directly from Kishimoto that it was when Itachi was approximately 15, which fits Kishi's parallel whoring perfectly.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> No one said the bold



Orochimaru said he left 7 years before part one. Akatsuki said Orochimaru left 10 years before part two. The massacre occurred 4 years before part 1. So yeah. _Everybody involved_ said the bold.​


Turrin said:


> This entire argument is based on one off hand statement that Orochimaru left 7 Years Ago.



And the corroborating statement made by Akatsuki. Literally everybody that has ever commented on Orochimaru's leaving in the manga said it happened 3 years before the massacre.​


----------



## Platypus (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> The massacre occurred 4 years before part 1.



Panel?

Still laughing at people with afaik no knowledge of Japanese arguing against OD's translations.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Platypus said:


> Panel?



Sasuke was stated to be 8. He was 12 in p1.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Orochimaru said he left 7 years before part one.
> 
> Akatsuki said Orochimaru left 10 years before part two.
> 
> ...


I want one panel of anyone saying Orochimaru left before the massacre. All they have said is he left 7 Years Ago. But in Part II we are told Itachi joined Akatsuki after the massacre and in the actual flashback to Itachi vs Orochimar,  Itachi is dressed in Akatsuki robes and has his headband cut, which happens after the massacre. Than we have DBIV telling us it actually happened when Itachi was 15.

Kishi fucked up when he said 7 Years, not thinking it through completely, and has since gone back and made every attempt possible to fix that in the later half of the manga.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin, Kishi corroborated the 7-year figure in part two, when Akatsuki said Orochimaru left  after the time skip. He confirmed the  years later into writing the manga.

So for all the howling about manga > databook, y'all seem to be waffling. Not to mention you of all people should know that DB4 is riddled with huge amounts of errors, even by databook standards.

ANBU Itachi discovering Obito long prior to the massacre, and beating Orochimaru at a similar time, before joining Akatsuki in an official capacity full time, is the conclusion the manga leaves us.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 31, 2016)

The reaching from Itachi fanboys is so hard.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> The reaching from Itachi fanboys is so hard.



Yeah, actually reading the manga, so hard.​


Platypus said:


> .



That is not the viz translation, which I'm looking at right now. The official translation makes no statement even relating to that.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 31, 2016)

Except your whole "Itachi was an 11 year old undercover Akatsuki member" relies on his _databook_ age of 18 during part 1...

Then the databook retcons it to 7 years before the end of part 2.

So if you're gonna ignore the databook retcon, then you have to ignore his databook age. 

"Shoddy translations" then whispers Sadgoob, even though OrganicDinosaur has been giving reddit and NF reliable translations for over a year. Deep down, Sadgoob knew that he was reaching, but he had to continue to argue that Itachi was eleven, because he couldn't get off to the thought that Itachi could be fifteen when he defeated Orochimaru.


----------



## Rai (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Because that's _so_ crazy that an ANBU masquerading as a missing ninja could have a second headband with the mark of a nunekin through it. That's so unrealistic for spies to do.
> 
> If you think your "evidence" outweighs both Orochimaru and Akatsuki both stating pointblank that Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki pre-dated the massacre by three years, then you're slow.​



Yes.

Zetsu not finding out that Itachi was not really a rouge ninja is pure bullshit since at "that time (according to you Itachi was spying on Akatsuki while he was in Konoha)" Itachi hasn't even meet Tobi.

Itachi's age in Part I & Part II was ever stated in the manga? (Nor incluiding DB)


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Turrin, Kishi corroborated the 7-year figure in part two, when Akatsuki said Orochimaru left  after the time skip. He confirmed the  years later into writing the manga.
> 
> ANBU Itachi discovering Obito long prior to the massacre, and beating Orochimaru at a similar time, before joining Akatsuki in an official capacity full time, is the conclusion the manga leaves us.​


Fact: Itachi was already in Akatsuki when he faced Orochimaru
Proven by: Itachi wearing Akatsuki Robe and Scratch Head-Band (and imo by his obvious appearance of not being fucking 11)

Fact: Itachi oined Akatsuki after massacring the clan
Proven by: Hiruzen's, Obito's, and Danzo's Statements (all of which more recent than the statements your citing)

So no that's factually incorrect.

As far as the Orochimaru time-line goes, Kishi obviously fucked up, illustrated by what's stated in the DB, and the above.



> So for all the howling about manga > databook, y'all seem to be waffling. Not to mention you of all people should know that DB4 is riddled with huge amounts of errors, even by databook standards.


I never said that shit once. When we have two conflicting statements from official sources, the most recent one should be taken as more likely than ones from like a decade ago. In my mind DBIV statement should have immediately settled this argument and that's it. 

It would be one thing if we had recent material from the manga that contradicts it, but that's not the case, rather all the most recent material from the manga places Itachi at having joined Akatsuki after massacring the clan.

Edit: And PS, even if you want to argue hey let's ignore appearances and DB facts on the time-line, than cool, I'll say Itachi was 250 Years old when he beat Orochimaru, and is 257 in P1,  Kishimoto just fucked up the drawing, PROVE ME WRONG


----------



## Bloo (Jan 31, 2016)

I must say, I have no idea where the notion of Itachi spying on the Akatsuki before the Massacre argument is coming from. _Nothing_ in the manga supports this, and—quite frankly—doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> That is not the viz translation, which I'm looking at right now. The official translation makes no statement even relating to that.​



Dude, volume 17 page 15. Go look at it.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Proven by: Itachi wearing Akatsuki Robe



We've seen Akatsuki associates (i.e. not full members) wearing robes.



Turrin said:


> and Scratch Head-Band (and imo by his obvious appearance of not being fucking 11)



Did you see 6-year-old Kakashi?



Platypus said:


> Dude, volume 17 page 15. Go look at it.



My bad, I was looking at the same scene in vol 25, page 136. 

Cool, Sasuke was 7 (unless Sasuke was ball-parking 7/8.) Or if some months passed between then and the massacre letting Sasuke turn 8, which would make sense given the age difference of the brothers and Itachi being 13 at the massacre.

In any case, if he were 7, Orochimaru leaving would still pre-date the massacre by two years.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> We've seen Akatsuki associates wearing robes.
> .


Literally saw the exact opposite with Tobi not wearing Akatsuki robes when he was an associate and than wore them when promoted. And than there is Itachi's head band which was scratched, which clearly happened after the massacre as well and is a symbol of joining Akatsuki.



> Did you see 6-year-old Kakashi?


I saw another time-line fuck up on Kishimoto's part.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Bloo said:


> I must say, I have no idea where the notion of Itachi spying on the Akatsuki before the Massacre argument is coming from. _Nothing_ in the manga supports this, and—quite frankly—doesn't make much sense.



Couple things support it, actually.

1. Itachi had contact with Obito long before the massacre.
1a. So Itachi knowing Obito's organization is probable. 

2. Orochimaru left Akatuski before the massacre. (2-3 years.)
2a. Orochimaru's stated reason for leaving was Itachi bullying him. 

3. Itachi was an ANBU since age 10. 
3a. ANBU do black ops shit, like espionage.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Couple things support it, actually.
> 
> 1. Itachi had contact with Obito long before the massacre.
> 1a. So Itachi knowing Obito's organization is probable.
> ...


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin, Hiruzen saying that doesn't prove anything due to the specification of Itachi doing it _alone_. Whether Itachi watched over Akatsuki before with village [ANBU] support is left up in the air as an implication. 

We can see that Hiruzen/Konoha was aware of Akatsuki's existence during Itachi's time as ANBU though, so it would make sense for them to watch them or engage in espionage, most likely with their most capable black ops ninja.



Turrin said:


> Literally saw the exact opposite with Tobi not wearing Akatsuki robes



Sasuke, Karen, Jugo, Suigetsu, Sasori's henchmen, etc.



Turrin said:


> And than there is Itachi's head band which was scratched



Not exactly beyond the realms of espionage.


----------



## Platypus (Jan 31, 2016)

It's never ever implied ANBU went on some undercover mission in Akatsuki. Really? "Well, they never go out of their way to say that ANBU did *not* infiltrate Akatsuki so it's pretty much implied they did." That's some weird logic right there. Same with: "Hiruzen mentions he went *alone*, so it's implied he had infiltrated *with a team* before." 

[sp=Repeating myself]





> .
> 
> And we know for a fact that  during the Chūnin Exams. (Naruto's birthday is on October 10, which is also a manga fact.)
> 
> until the end of Part I, making it perfectly reasonable to assume that Sasuke was about 14 years old by then, give or take a few months. 14 minus 7 makes 7. Itachi massacred his clan, then joined Akatsuki and chased away Orochimaru, all in a relatively short timespan. Makes the most sense to me. People rarely give the exact time duration when they're talking years anyway.


[/sp]

The latest databook retconning the '7 years ago' statement was merely because of its own past fuckups, i.e. stating that Itachi was only 18 years old during Part I.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> How does it effect the plot if Orochimaru left Akatsuki at 7 Years Before P1 or 4 Years?


It might have effected the Orochimaru body transfer time line, it was mentioned that Oro was in his 3rd body when he was fighting Hiruzen.

Itachi's anbu captain promotion age is just a little detail that was never mentioned again.

I think the only relevance it has is to show  that Itachi was on a completely different level than Naruto & Sasuke @ their age. 



> Here's what I think happened. Kishi said Kakashi was 6 back in the day, before he thought up the parallel between Team 7 and Team Kakashi. Then when he went to draw the Chunin Exams, he made Kakashi, Obito, and Rin the same age as Naruto and Sasuke in Part I 12~13, in-order to once again parallel whore.
> 
> Same reason he probably imagines Itachi being around the same age as Sasuke, as it falls in line w/ his parallel whoring.


You are probably right about the age thing. 6 year old Kakashi was probably dismissed just to write Obito into Kakashi's past and follow the team 7 theme.

But the thing is, Kakashi doesn't look like Naruto & sasuke either. 
Both Naruto and Sasuke looked like actual kids in part 1.

Kakashi, Asuma and Gai are supposed to be 13 here : 2
But they look more like part 2 rookies than part 1 rookies.

We can safely conclude that Kishimoto isn't really that picky about representing actual age. 
So you can't nitpick about Itachi not looking like a teenager and ignore everything else. 



>



Thats a remark concerning the genjutsu they used.

Other than that the circumstances are not comparable.
Itachi doesn't have to be Sasuke's age to replicate what he did, because like I said, he was always stronger than Sasuke @ early ages. That was the whole point of Kakashi mentioning that he was an anbu captain when Sasuke & Naruto were struggling to become chuunin.



> You just listed them.



So 2 very specific instances from both part 1 and part 2 point out towards Itachi being 11.

Some others point towards him being 13.

I don't see how 15 is supported by anything other than the last databook entry ? 

If you actually dismiss Itachi being promoted to Anbu captain @ 13, then everything seems to be solved.



> Kishimoto most recently said he was 15, as simple as that then



Honestly, that is most likely an error. 
Kishimoto could have corrected it in the span of a 700 chapter manga and 2 previous databooks but didn't.
Trying to retcon it when it is the least relevant doesn't make much sense.



Turrin said:


> I'm fairly certain your wrong.


I was actually right.

Here is the scan I was looking for : 



Sadgoob said:


> Turrin, Kishi corroborated the 7-year figure in part two, when Akatsuki said Orochimaru left  after the time skip. He confirmed the  years later into writing the manga.​





Like I said, Orochimaru leaving Akatsuki was mentioned twice, both in part 1 and part 2.​


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Platypus said:


> It's never ever implied ANBU went on some undercover mission in Akatsuki. Really? "Well, they never go out of their way to say that ANBU did *not* infiltrate Akatsuki so it's pretty much implied they did." That's some weird logic right there. Same with: "Hiruzen mentions he went _alone_, so it's implied he had infiltrated with an ANBU team before."



I'm consolidating the given information that Orochimaru left Akatsuki 2-3 years before Itachi slew his clan.​


----------



## Bloo (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Couple things support it, actually.
> 
> 1. Itachi had contact with Obito long before the massacre.
> 1a. So Itachi knowing Obito's organization is probable.


Nothing supports this. It was shown that Itachi first approached Obito when he needed to ask for help in the Massacre... Itachi just noticed Obito's existence before having to make contact with him.



> 2. Orochimaru left Akatuski before the massacre. (2-3 years.)
> 2a. Orochimaru's stated reason for leaving was Itachi bullying him.


Nothing supports point 2. Point 2a is correct, though. Orochimaru left after Itachi joined the Akatsuki, which happened after Itachi initiated the massacre. 



> 3. Itachi was an ANBU since age 10.
> 3a. ANBU do black ops shit, like espionage.


And Itachi became an ANBU Captain at age 13, and initiated the massacre after that. Meaning he was likely 13 or 14.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> It might have effected the Orochimaru body transfer time line, it was mentioned that Oro was in his 3rd body when he was fighting Hiruzen.
> 
> Itachi's anbu captain promotion age is just a little detail that was never mentioned again.
> 
> I think the only relevance it has is to show  that Itachi was on a completely different level than Naruto & Sasuke @ their age.


So let's say the relevance is to establish Itachi as always being a step ahead of Sasuke, I can buy that. But to me that was already established much more clearly by this scene here .

So is it really adding anything to the story, not really.

I think the parallel w/ Sasuke and Itachi both being 15, adds more to the story, as it's right around the time that Kishimoto is hyping up Sasuke trying to mislead readers into believing Sasuke has an actual chance of beating Itachi, leading up to the reveal that Sasuke really stood no chance and Itachi let him win.



> Kakashi, Asuma and Gai are supposed to be 13 here : 2
> But they look more like part 2 rookies than part 1 rookies.
> 
> We can safely conclude that Kishimoto isn't really that picky about representing actual age.
> So you can't nitpick about Itachi not looking like a teenager and ignore everything else.


If they are 12-13 during the Chunin Exams, they are probably 14-16 the night of the Kyuubi attack and are indeed around the age of the Part II rookies. Again to me the appearances are consistent w/ what i'd expect from Kishimoto, what's not consistent is the stated time-line.

For example I expect Obito and Kakashi to be 12-13 during the Chunin Exams to reinforce the Obito/Kakashi & Naru/Sasu parallel. I expect Itachi to be 15 when facing Orochimaru, to reinforce the Sasu/Itachi parallel. And the appearances of the characters fit that. What the appearances don't fit, is some of the statements made over a decade ago about the time-line.



> Thats a remark concerning the genjutsu they used.
> 
> Other than that the circumstances are not comparable.
> Itachi doesn't have to be Sasuke's age to replicate what he did, because like I said, he was always stronger than Sasuke @ early ages. That was the whole point of Kakashi mentioning that he was an anbu captain when Sasuke & Naruto were struggling to become chuunin.


Itachi not having to be Sasuke's age has nothing to do with anything. Let's not be intellectually dishonest here Grimmjow, the entire reason we got that Orochimaru vs Itachi flashbacks was blatantly Kishimoto paralleling what happened back then w/ what was happening now. 

As far as circumstances goes, circumstantially Kishimoto wanted to deceive readers into believing Sasuke was finally catching up to Itachi, so he drew a parallel between the two of them accomplishing the same feat, however Kishi intentionally left the differing circumstances for readers to see, and even throws shade on Sasuke's victory over Orochimaru after the Deidara fight. This too was intentional, so as to hint to readers, that Sasuke had not really caught up to his brother. Enter Itachi vs Sasuke fight, and we are lead to believe the entire fight that Sasuke had things under control and just when it looks like Sasuke has Itachi beat w/ Kirin, Itachi counters and displays his clear superiority, and it is also at this time that Sasuke looses to Orochimaru as well, w/ Orochimaru also taking hold off him. Basically a complete collapse of the illusion that Kishi set up that Sasuke had really caught his brother.



> So 2 very specific instances from both part 1 and part 2 point out towards Itachi being 11.
> 
> Some others point towards him being 13.
> 
> I don't see how 15 is supported by anything other than the last databook entry ?


Orochimaru's Time-Line is the only thing that points towards Itachi being 11, and everything else points to Itachi being 13+, is what I meant.

But let's cut through a bit of BS on both our parts here and just get to the main point. You said it yourself we should take the most recent statement above older ones. Thee most recent statements is the one from DBIV, so we should both agree that DBIV is the deciding statement here, and Itachi was 15. Unless of course you wish to argue in favor of disregarding the Data-books, but in that case we don't have any real exact ages as they all come from the the Data-books. We only know Itachi was 11 7 Years prior to Part 1 for instance, because Data-book II tell us he was 18 in Part I and 21 2.5 Years later in DBIII. Get rid of that and all we got is appearances, which to me Itachi certainly looks closer to 15 than 11. 



> If you actually dismiss Itachi being promoted to Anbu captain @ 13, then everything seems to be solved.


Not really as you also need to dismiss appearances and DBIV's statement, which is the most recent.



> Honestly, that is most likely an error.
> Kishimoto could have corrected it in the span of a 700 chapter manga and 2 previous databooks but didn't.
> Trying to retcon it when it is the least relevant doesn't make much sense.


I think a statements made over a decade ago, that was already in contradiction with another statement, has more of a chance to have been an error or a retecon, than thee most recent statement, which falls in line with how the character actually appeared in the flashback and Kishimoto's parallel whoring.



> I was actually right.
> 
> Here is the scan I was looking for :


Fair enough, I admit I was wrong there.


----------



## Dr. White (Jan 31, 2016)

Itachi was 13 to 14 with the former being mroe accurate.

Konoha had him ANBU or as a chunin and directly placed him to ANBU captain so he could spy on Uchiha, while the Uchiha thought they had mole in Itachi. No one really knew what side Itachi was going take tbh. Danzo made shit pop, and Itachi decided. Like I said, every large time gap, was explicitly stated in the Itachi-Sasuke flashback with the lowest range of time they mention being 6 months. Sasuke had time to master GOkakyu so it wasn't like a day later, but it wasn't any significant amount of time.

So Itachi at 13 killed his clan sometime, and in the following months fled and joined his only connect left (which Hiruzen was using to watch over akatsuki). during his first introduction day, Oro lusted over his body, and sometime in the very near future decided to attack and got beat.


----------



## ImSerious (Jan 31, 2016)

turrin is making the most sense in this entire thread. it was a good read.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Bloo said:


> Nothing supports this. It was shown that Itachi first approached Obito when he needed to ask for help in the Massacre...



Not exactly. The first mention of Itachi discovering Obito was here.



The context of which was left vague. Itachi noticing Obito's presence through an ANBU mission monitoring Akatsuki makes as much sense as anything else you could come up with, I'd wager.​


Bloo said:


> And Itachi became an ANBU Captain at age 13, and initiated the massacre after that. Meaning he was likely 13 or 14.



Itachi became an ANBU captain at 13, but joined ANBU at 10.​


----------



## Rocky (Jan 31, 2016)

Is it worth it to debate the timeline when 44 y/o Hiruzen in the Danzō flashback happened?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

I wonder how old Hiruzen was here : 
and I fell right into it

30-35 ?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> So let's say the relevance is to establish Itachi as always being a step ahead of Sasuke, I can buy that. But to me that was already established much more clearly by this scene here .
> 
> So is it really adding anything to the story, not really.
> 
> ...



You are still using appereance as a measuring stick. When we both know that it doesn't work for anyone else. Why is Itachi the exception here ? 

Also while I agree with new evidence overriding the old one, manga evidence still has priority over databook. So when there is contradiction between manga and DB, I'll go with the manga.
Especially when the manga set this particular date in stone by repeating it twice in two seperate occasions over a couple of years period. 

Like I said, the chances of Kishimoto making an error that compromises the timeline of the story is less likely than a numerical error made in DB. Especially considering how shitty the new DB 4 is and there is almost nothing new in it. It seems like a compilation of manga chapters rather than brand new info.

Also about the Sasuke/Itachi parallel; it doesn't work because like I said, Itachi was on a completely different level as a teenager.

You would have a point if Sasuke and Itachi had a Naruto / Sasuke dynamic so there would be a parallel between their progress but unfortunately that was never the case. Itachi was always ahead and managed to accomplish more when he was alot younger. 
Defeating Orochimaru would be no different.


----------



## Bringer (Jan 31, 2016)

*@Grimm*

So if we're ignoring the databook, then what stops Itachi from being 20 in part 1? Or 21? Or 22? All we know is that he was 13 or older when the Uchiha massacre happened, besides that taking only manga into consideration we don't have a set age with Itachi, and there is no set age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. It could be 5 years, it could be 9 years. 

I find that a lot of the manga's fucked up timeline becomes none fucked up if we ignore databook ages and databook graduation ages. Kakashi's chunin exam flashback becomes no longer fucked up(the only remaining manga inconsistency would be Kurenai not knowing who Ibiki is). Hiruzen being 40+ in the Tobirama flashback would no longer be a problem.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> *@Grimm*
> 
> So if we're ignoring the databook, then what stops Itachi from being 20 in part 1? Or 21? Or 22? All we know is that he was 13 or older when the Uchiha massacre happened, besides that taking only manga into consideration we don't have a set age with Itachi, and there is no set age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. It could be 5 years, it could be 9 years.
> 
> I find that a lot of the manga's fucked up timeline becomes none fucked up if we ignore databook ages and databook graduation ages. Kakashi's chunin exam flashback becomes no longer fucked up(the only remaining manga inconsistency would be Kurenai not knowing who Ibiki is). Hiruzen being 40+ in the Tobirama flashback would no longer be a problem.



I'm not ignoring the databook. All I'm saying is that evidence in the manga is more solid for this case.

Although if you have evidence that Itachi is 20+ part 1, then I suggest you show me.

I don't think you have any evidence though. But just looking @ the night of the Kyuubi incident, and how both brothers look, I don't think there is 7+ years age difference. 

Itachi is also drawn pretty young in part 1, if you look @ their side by side comparison with Sasuke, they look very much like. It doesn't seem like there is a huge age difference like you are suggesting at all : destroyed the integrity


----------



## Bringer (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I'm not ignoring the databook. All I'm saying is that evidence in the manga is more solid for this case.



You sort of are. The 4th databook retcon was basically Kishi realizing the fuck up and trying to fix it. 



> Although if you have evidence that Itachi is 20+ part 1, then I suggest you show me.



I don't have evidence for 20+ but there is evidence for just 20.

Ignoring the databook retcon, Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1.

If Itachi is 18(databook age) he'd be 11 during their fight, which was before he became Anbu captain. No one except Sadgoob agree's that he was 11 during the Orochimaru fight(Sadgoob thinks that Itachi was an 11 year old undercover in Akatsuki before he massacred his clan)

Now ignoring databook, Itachi would have to be AT LEAST 20 in part 1. 20 - 7 = 13. Itachi's fight with Orochimaru has to take place after the massacre. 



> I don't think you have any evidence though. But just looking @ the night of the Kyuubi incident, and how both brothers look, I don't think there is 7+ years age difference.
> 
> Itachi is also drawn pretty young in part 1, if you look @ their side by side comparison with Sasuke, they look very much like. It doesn't seem like there is a huge age difference like you are suggesting at all : destroyed the integrity



You're a pretty disingenuous debater. 

With Turrin, you're all like "Kishi doesn't have to accurately portray ages when drawing"

And now you're using Turrin's very own "He doesn't look that age in this drawing".


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> *@Grimm*
> 
> So if we're ignoring the databook, then what stops Itachi from being 20 in part 1? Or 21? Or 22? All we know is that he was 13 or older when the Uchiha massacre happened, besides that taking only manga into consideration we don't have a set age with Itachi, and there is no set age gap between Sasuke and Itachi. It could be 5 years, it could be 9 years.
> 
> I find that a lot of the manga's fucked up timeline becomes none fucked up if we ignore databook ages and databook graduation ages. Kakashi's chunin exam flashback becomes no longer fucked up(the only remaining manga inconsistency would be Kurenai not knowing who Ibiki is). Hiruzen being 40+ in the Tobirama flashback would no longer be a problem.



It was stated in-manga that Kakashi was 6 as a Chunin.



BringerOfChaos said:


> Sadgoob thinks that Itachi was an 11 year old undercover in Akatsuki before he massacred his clan)



Still not seeing why this is a crazy conclusion for an ANBU veteran that knew Obito before the massacre. I'd say it's crazier to assume Itachi randomly and successfully hunted down Obito (a teleporting ghost) a few days before the massacre and asked the masked stranger he didn't know for assistance.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 31, 2016)

Kishi done fucked up


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 31, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> You sort of are. The 4th databook retcon was basically Kishi realizing the fuck up and trying to fix it.



Thats how you are interpreting it. 

It could very well be an error, because a retcon @ this point makes no sense. 
Itachi vs Oro confrontation is not relevant anymore. Its just a cute little detail that everyone likes to talk about every once in a while.
And it is a detail that Kishimoto could have corrected in the span of a 700 chapter manga and 2 databooks. 



> I don't have evidence for 20+ but there is evidence for just 20.
> 
> Ignoring the databook retcon, Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before part 1.
> 
> ...



Or, you ignore the remark about Itachi's anbu captain promotion age, and the whole thing is solved. 
I think that is easier.



> You're a pretty disingenuous debater.



Only if you ignore the context of the conversation.



> With Turrin, you're all like "Kishi doesn't have to accurately portray ages when drawing"
> 
> And now you're using Turrin's very own "He doesn't look that age in this drawing".



My argument is that most characters in flashbacks look older then they are supposed to because Kishimoto's first priority is to make them look recognizable, instead of making them represent a very specific age.

But being familiar with Kishimoto's drawing style, the drawing model he used for Itachi in the Kyuubi incident is the model for very young kids. 

This is Itachi in his academy years : destroyed the integrity
destroyed the integrity

This is the Kyuubi flashback  : destroyed the integrity

That is certainly pre academy Itachi. 

My personal take is that the age difference can be anywhere from 4-6. Thats how old Itachi looks in  that flashback. Probably close to 5 or 6.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 31, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> No one except Sadgoob agree's that he was 11 during the Orochimaru fight (Sadgoob thinks that Itachi was an 11 year old undercover in Akatsuki before he massacred his clan).



LMAO

I haven't read though Strat's posts, but I guarantee you he found some way to make that seem like it could actually be possible, if not probable.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 31, 2016)

That's pretty fucking out there, I imagine that it would have been at least stated if not emphasised if that was the case.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

It's not out there for black ops agents to do black ops shit.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 31, 2016)

It kind of is since there are no implications that he joined Akatsuki while in ANBU at all.


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Itachі said:


> It kind of is since there are no implications that he joined Akatsuki while in ANBU at all.



Uh, other than Orochimaru and Akatsuki both stating that Orochimaru left Akatsuki (as a result of Itachi) before the massacre i.e. when in ANBU.


----------



## Itachі (Jan 31, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> Uh, other than Orochimaru and Akatsuki both stating that Orochimaru left Akatsuki (as a result of Itachi) before the massacre i.e. when in ANBU.



But don't you imagine that Hiruzen, Obito, Danzo or Itachi would have at least mentioned it?


----------



## Sadgoob (Jan 31, 2016)

Itachі said:


> But don't you imagine that Hiruzen, Obito, Danzo or Itachi would have at least mentioned it?



Obito and Itachi basically did mention it with them talking and dealing pre-massacre. Hiruzen mentioned he was aware of Akatsuki and let Itachi watch over them alone after the massacre. 

Danzo's knowledge of Itachi's Amaterasu and Tsukuyomi still presents interesting unknowns, as well as his meeting and dealing with Orochimaru for all those Uchiha Sharingan.​


----------



## Bringer (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Thats how you are interpreting it.
> 
> It could very well be an error, because a retcon @ this point makes no sense.
> Itachi vs Oro confrontation is not relevant anymore. Its just a cute little detail that everyone likes to talk about every once in a while.
> And it is a detail that Kishimoto could have corrected in the span of a 700 chapter manga and 2 databooks.



Why would it be an error? How would they make that mistake? It seems more likely that someone on Kishi's end realized that Orochimaru couldn't have left 7 years before part 1 because Itachi would be 11. 




> Or, you ignore the remark about Itachi's anbu captain promotion age, and the whole thing is solved.
> I think that is easier.



So we're ignoring manga statements now. One could just as easily ignore the Orochimaru leaving 7 years ago. 






> My argument is that most characters in flashbacks look older then they are supposed to because Kishimoto's first priority is to make them look recognizable, instead of making them represent a very specific age.
> 
> But being familiar with Kishimoto's drawing style, the drawing model he used for Itachi in the Kyuubi incident is the model for very young kids.



would be dangerous
would be dangerous

I imagine Sakura and Ino to be around 8-9 in this flashback, and that's around Itachi's model in the Kyuubi flashback. 



> This is Itachi in his academy years : would be dangerous
> would be dangerous
> 
> This is the Kyuubi flashback  : would be dangerous
> ...



I'd rather not get into a discussion on a subjective point(of how old we perceive a character is). We both know that Itachi isn't 1 years old in that panel, and we both know Itachi isn't 100. It gets more subjective when we consider he isn't 1 but isn't 10. It could be anything in the middle. Shit, if we're looking at the flashback when Itachi and Sasuke play together, Itachi looks 13 to me, while in the Kyuubi flashback he looks 8. 

All I wanted to point out is that when you're arguing with Turrin you can't just go "Kishi doesn't have to draw a character to look like their age" and then when someone uses that against you, you can't just go "He doesn't look that age".  It's still disingenuous  even with "context". Saying they don't look their age because Kishi wants to make them recognizable sounds like reaching to me. Itachi will always look recognizable because he always has his face lines.


----------



## Turrin (Jan 31, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> You are still using appereance as a measuring stick. When we both know that it doesn't work for anyone else. Why is Itachi the exception here ?
> .


Grim how am I ignoring appearances for other characters, I gave you a rational explanation for why the one character you cited (Kakashi) appeared differently than his stated DB age indicated.



> Also while I agree with new evidence overriding the old one, manga evidence still has priority over databook. So when there is contradiction between manga and DB, I'll go with the manga.
> Especially when the manga set this particular date in stone by repeating it twice in two seperate occasions over a couple of years period.


Okay than Itachi being stated to become an Anbu captain at age 13 and only joining Akatsuki after massacring the Clan, combined with the Orochimaru statements, overrides his stated Data-Book age of 18 at the start of Part I, and the end results remains unchanged.

No matter how you slice it, we come around to same logical conclusion; Itachi was not 11.



> Like I said, the chances of Kishimoto making an error that compromises the timeline of the story is less likely than a numerical error made in DB. Especially considering how shitty the new DB 4 is and there is almost nothing new in it. It seems like a compilation of manga chapters rather than brand new info.


As I've already illustrated it doesn't compromise the story though.



> Also about the Sasuke/Itachi parallel; it doesn't work because like I said, Itachi was on a completely different level as a teenager.
> 
> You would have a point if Sasuke and Itachi had a Naruto / Sasuke dynamic so there would be a parallel between their progress but unfortunately that was never the case. Itachi was always ahead and managed to accomplish more when he was alot younger.
> Defeating Orochimaru would be no different.


 I'm trying to have a nice convo with you, but I can't shake the feeling that your just straight lying to me or yourself here, because there is no way someone honestly believes Sasuke was not meant to parallel Itachi in that scene.


----------



## Eliyua23 (Jan 31, 2016)

When you really slice the Sasuke/Itachi comparisons , Itachi being 15 not 11 makes his feats as a youngster not that impressive , matter of fact Kishi scaled back a lot of implied Itachi hype 


Killing Shisui , nope he gave Itachi his eyes then died 

Killing Fugaku, nope he willingly let himself be killed by his son 

Murdered the Clan, nope he had help from Obito

Defeated Orochimaru at 11, nope he was 15 and also we learn it wasn't a one vs one combat scenario it was Orochimaru trying to take over his body and losing , and guess what Sasuke replicates that feat

ANBU Captain, nope ANBU have been shown to not be that impressive matter of fact most of them have been fodder, so Itachi was effectively stronger than a bunch of fodder

Best of his class in the academy, not me not the haters but the novel made it seem like he was so far ahead of the other students but what they failed to do was establish there were other strong rookies in his class , matter of fact Sasuke being the top is more impressive considering there was Neji, Rock Lee, Naruto, Shikamaru, Gaara other impressive top dogs where the novel didn't establish that , Itachi was just established as being a top dog amongst others that weren't that special to begin with 

Itachi was perect , nope he admitted his plans and how he handled the massacre/Sasuke was an utter failure 

Nagato/Kabuto, nope he won one battle with the help of two other High Kage level ninja , and the other with the help of one utilizing and taking advantage of an edo tensei body , with an ability inzanami as he said himself was totally conditional and not reliable in the typical one vs one bout.

Yes Itachi was impressive but his genius and accomplishments as a youth were not so out of the realm that they are on a completely different level to what Sasuke or Naruto could do or shit most talented kids could pull off at the same age , what was hyped about Itachi though was his wisdom and his ability to sacrifice himself for the village true shinobi traits , he just fails to adhere to his power whore fans that have a gushing fantasy about him being the strongest


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 1, 2016)

BringerOfChaos said:


> Why would it be an error? How would they make that mistake? It seems more likely that someone on Kishi's end realized that Orochimaru couldn't have left 7 years before part 1 because Itachi would be 11.



Like I told you, the Orochimaru incident was solidified in the manga twice. And Kishimoto didn't correct that detail in the manga or in the previous databooks when it was more relevant.

But a numeritical error in DB ? Sounds alot more plausible.



> So we're ignoring manga statements now. One could just as easily ignore the Orochimaru leaving 7 years ago.



To make more sense out of it yeah. Like I said, it solves the problem.




> [2]
> [2]
> 
> I imagine Sakura and Ino to be around 8-9 in this flashback, and that's around Itachi's model in the Kyuubi flashback.


They look bigger than Itachi and I reckon its their first year since they seem to be getting to know each other, which would make them 7.




> I'd rather not get into a discussion on a subjective point(of how old we perceive a character is). We both know that Itachi isn't 1 years old in that panel, and we both know Itachi isn't 100. It gets more subjective when we consider he isn't 1 but isn't 10. It could be anything in the middle. Shit, if we're looking at the flashback when Itachi and Sasuke play together, Itachi looks 13 to me, while in the Kyuubi flashback he looks 8.


Its not that subjective if you look for certain cues.
Itachi for example is drawn chubby. 
His head is too big for his body.
Those are all hints that he is very little.



> All I wanted to point out is that when you're arguing with Turrin you can't just go "Kishi doesn't have to draw a character to look like their age" and then when someone uses that against you, you can't just go "He doesn't look that age".  It's still disingenuous  even with "context". Saying they don't look their age because Kishi wants to make them recognizable sounds like reaching to me. Itachi will always look recognizable because he always has his face lines.



I said Kishimoto draws them older, not younger. So thats why contextually I can present it as an evidence.
But sure if you think thats disingenuous, then lets just ignore all appereance based age estimations and go with the databook ages instead. I'm totally fine with that since I use the manga appereance to show the actual correlation between manga and the databook age difference anyway.



Turrin said:


> Grim how am I ignoring appearances for other characters, I gave you a rational explanation for why the one character you cited (Kakashi) appeared differently than his stated DB age indicated.


You said "their timeline is fucked up."
That doesn't change the fact that Kishimoto had the intention of drawing Kakashi as a preteen and he doesn't look anything like a pre teen.



> Okay than Itachi being stated to become an Anbu captain at age 13 and only joining Akatsuki after massacring the Clan, combined with the Orochimaru statements, overrides his stated Data-Book age of 18 at the start of Part I, and the end results remains unchanged.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, we come around to same logical conclusion; Itachi was not 11.





> As I've already illustrated it doesn't compromise the story though.



It does. Otherwise we wouldn't be making this conversation.
Your whole point is, "how can this guy become anbu captain @ 13 and be in Akatsuki @ 11 ? "

Which I already admitted is contradictory for me too.

It also effects the Orochimaru body snatch timeline. 
Orochimaru's 3 years were up @ end of part 1. 
IF he confronted Itachi 4 years before part 1, then he would still have 1 year in his first body.
If he confronted him 7 years before however, then it would be before he snatched his first body.



> I'm trying to have a nice convo with you, but I can't shake the feeling that your just straight lying to me or yourself here, because there is no way someone honestly believes Sasuke was not meant to parallel Itachi in that scene.


I think you are so focused on disagreeing with me that whatever I'm saying never  gets to you.

I didn't say defeating Orochimaru isn't supposed to create a parallel.
I said* their progress don't have to parallel each other. *
Itachi doesn't have to be 15 to defeat Orochimaru like Sasuke, because for the millionth time, Itachi was depicted as a much stronger teenager than Sasuke.
He was a chuunin and an anbu @ 10.5 with complete sharingan mastery.
Sasuke wasn't @ that level when he was 13. 

Why do they have to be the same age to replicate something mutual ? There is absolutely no reason for that.
You have to admit the fact that you don't like Itachi being a special case. Too bad manga has cemented it with more than just one incidence, so even if you were right about this, which you are not, it still wouldn't change the fact that Itachi was a "one of a kind" genius.


----------



## Transcendent Shinobi (Feb 1, 2016)

How is this still going on? The most powerful child is clearly Nagato....jesus. They should make an entire Forum website for Itachi Wankers...


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 1, 2016)

Young adult Nagato was getting ass ripped apart by Hanzo up until he synced with Gedo and turned into a skeleton.

I highly doubt child Nagato was as impressive as Itachi.

A website for Itachi "wankers" would be nice. I bet you'd be a regular, since you can't seem to get enough of Itachi threads.


----------



## Transcendent Shinobi (Feb 1, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Young adult Nagato was getting ass ripped apart by Hanzo up until he synced with Gedo and turned into a skeleton.
> 
> *I highly doubt child Nagato was as impressive as Itachi.
> *
> A website for Itachi "wankers" would be nice. I bet you'd be a regular, since you can't seem to get enough of Itachi threads.



So Itachi can not only defeat like 100 Anbu black ops guys at once but then force Hanzo to retreat at 13 years old?


----------



## Platypus (Feb 1, 2016)

Transcendent Shinobi said:


> So Itachi can not only defeat like 100 Anbu black ops guys at once but then force Hanzo to retreat *at 13 years old*?



Nagato wasn't 13.

Here we go again.

Databook puts Yahiko at 15 years old when he died (, ). Nagato and Konan both died at 35. They need to have been at least several year older than Yahiko, otherwise the timeline is fucked. Here's why: 


Say the Ame orphans were all of the same age, so all of them were 15 when Hanzō tried backstabbing them. 
Meaning said incident happened about 20 years before Part II (35-15=20). 
Meaning Obito met them at least 20 years prior to Part II. 
Which can't be right considering Obito would've been (at most) only 11 years old back then (31-20=11).

At least according to databooks. Little was given regarding the Ame orphans' timeline in the manga.

/loldatabooks

IMO it's better to go with Chōji's description of Yahiko's dead body, which puts them at 25–30 old at the time of the Hanzō incident (the bodies don't age, do they?).


----------



## Transcendent Shinobi (Feb 1, 2016)

Platypus said:


> Nagato wasn't 13.
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> ...



Yeah no shit haha. But Grim was comparing 13 year old Itachi to 15+ Nagato. 13 year old Nagato is still stronger then 13 year old Itachi any day.


----------



## Turrin (Feb 1, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Like I told you, the Orochimaru incident was solidified in the manga twice. And Kishimoto didn't correct that detail in the manga or in the previous databooks when it was more relevant.


As I already said, I don't think Kishimoto intended for them to be pre-teens.



> It does. Otherwise we wouldn't be making this conversation.
> Your whole point is, "how can this guy become anbu captain @ 13 and be in Akatsuki @ 11 ? "
> 
> Which I already admitted is contradictory for me too.


So if it's contradictory then we discard DB info to make it work according to you, which means Itachi wasn't 11 when he fought Orochimaru; thee end



> It also effects the Orochimaru body snatch timeline.
> Orochimaru's 3 years were up @ end of part 1.
> IF he confronted Itachi 4 years before part 1, then he would still have 1 year in his first body.
> If he confronted him 7 years before however, then it would be before he snatched his first body.


I don't see how it makes sense at 7 Years prior to Part I to be perfectly honest with you. If he body swapped around the time he lost to Itachi, that would give him 3 Years, than he'd have to body swap again after another 3 Years, which would mean at the start of Part I he'd have atleast another 2 Years before he could body swap again, even if Part I events took up a Year, that would still leave him another year before he could body swap.

While Itachi being 15 makes perfect sense. He was 18 as of DBII, which means he was probably 17 at the start of Part I, as he's 5 Years apart from Sasuke. Which means if he was 15 when he confronted Orochimaru, it would have been 2 Years prior to right at the start of Part I, and than approximately a year would have passed by the end of Part I. If Orochimaru performed his first swap 3 years before Itachi, and he tried to get Itachi on his second swap, failed, and than swapped with someone else, this would all approximately fit (and since the DB uses approximately when talking ages, I feel like that's enough).

If anything this points to the original 7 Years Prior to Part I being a fuck up and the correct statement in the Data book being more accurate.



> I didn't say defeating Orochimaru isn't supposed to create a parallel.
> I said their progress don't have to parallel each other.
> Itachi doesn't have to be 15 to defeat Orochimaru like Sasuke, because for the millionth time, Itachi was depicted as a much stronger teenager than Sasuke.
> He was a chuunin and an anbu @ 10.5 with complete sharingan mastery.
> ...


I already explained this:

As far as circumstances goes, circumstantially Kishimoto wanted to deceive readers into believing Sasuke was finally catching up to Itachi, so he drew a parallel between the two of them accomplishing the same feat, however Kishi intentionally left the differing circumstances for readers to see, and even throws shade on Sasuke's victory over Orochimaru after the Deidara fight. This too was intentional, so as to hint to readers, that Sasuke had not really caught up to his brother. Enter Itachi vs Sasuke fight, and we are lead to believe the entire fight that Sasuke had things under control and just when it looks like Sasuke has Itachi beat w/ Kirin, Itachi counters and displays his clear superiority, and it is also at this time that Sasuke looses to Orochimaru as well, w/ Orochimaru also taking hold off him. Basically a complete collapse of the illusion that Kishi set up that Sasuke had really caught his brother.



> You have to admit the fact that you don't like Itachi being a special case. Too bad manga has cemented it with more than just one incidence, so even if you were right about this, which you are not, it still wouldn't change the fact that Itachi was a "one of a kind" genius.


Your attacking a straw-man, as I've said multiple times on the forums Itachi is one of the greatest geniuses in the manga and is very special case when it comes to talent. The one thing i'm not sure off is if Itachi is suppose to be seen as thee greatest genius in the entire manga, but my uncertainty has nothing to do with whether Itachi was stronger than Orochimaru when he was 11, 13, or 15. It has to do w/ how Kishimoto wants us to quantify Sharigan into the discussion of genius and what would a character like Shikkamaru be like if he actually put hard work in.


----------



## Arles Celes (Feb 1, 2016)

Either him or Obito. Since Obito faced Minato who was portrayed as stronger than Oro. Also Itachi could have faced a year or two after the Itachi massacre which would make him 14 or even 15 years old.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 1, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I don't see how it makes sense at 7 Years prior to Part I to be perfectly honest with you. If he body swapped around the time he lost to Itachi, that would give him 3 Years, than he'd have to body swap again after another 3 Years, which would mean at the start of Part I he'd have atleast another 2 Years before he could body swap again, even if Part I events took up a Year, that would still leave him another year before he could body swap.
> 
> While Itachi being 15 makes perfect sense. He was 18 as of DBII, which means he was probably 17 at the start of Part I, as he's 5 Years apart from Sasuke. Which means if he was 15 when he confronted Orochimaru, it would have been 2 Years prior to right at the start of Part I, and than approximately a year would have passed by the end of Part I. If Orochimaru performed his first swap 3 years before Itachi, and he tried to get Itachi on his second swap, failed, and than swapped with someone else, this would all approximately fit (and since the DB uses approximately when talking ages, I feel like that's enough).
> 
> If anything this points to the original 7 Years Prior to Part I being a fuck up and the correct statement in the Data book being more accurate.


The problem with that is, if it is 7 years ago, then it means Orochimaru might have been looking for a suitable body to snatch. 

But If it was 4 years ago, then he would be in his 1st body with 1 year left on the cool down. 

So it makes no sense for him to go after Itachi's body at that point, while he could just wait for 1 years and go after him when it is appropriate time for the body transfer.
As we know, he waited for 2.5-3 years to take over Sasuke's body. Meaning he couldn't have taken it earlier than 3 years.
So why did he go after Itachi ? 

7 years make sense. 4 years doesn't.



> I already explained this:
> 
> As far as circumstances goes, circumstantially Kishimoto wanted to deceive readers into believing Sasuke was finally catching up to Itachi, so he drew a parallel between the two of them accomplishing the same feat, however Kishi intentionally left the differing circumstances for readers to see, and even throws shade on Sasuke's victory over Orochimaru after the Deidara fight. This too was intentional, so as to hint to readers, that Sasuke had not really caught up to his brother. Enter Itachi vs Sasuke fight, and we are lead to believe the entire fight that Sasuke had things under control and just when it looks like Sasuke has Itachi beat w/ Kirin, Itachi counters and displays his clear superiority, and it is also at this time that Sasuke looses to Orochimaru as well, w/ Orochimaru also taking hold off him. Basically a complete collapse of the illusion that Kishi set up that Sasuke had really caught his brother.



Like I said, I agree with parallel of both of them accomplishing the same feat.
What I don't agree with is that Itachi and Sasuke didn't progress @ the same rate.
So placing Itachi on Sasuke's age just so this paralell could make further sense is baseless, because Itachi was an Anbu captain @ 13. Sasuke was struggling to become a chuunin @ that point.
It is no surprise that Itachi was @ a level necessary to defeat Orochimaru way before Sasuke ever was.



> Your attacking a straw-man, as I've said multiple times on the forums Itachi is one of the greatest geniuses in the manga and is very special case when it comes to talent. The one thing i'm not sure off is if Itachi is suppose to be seen as thee greatest genius in the entire manga, but my uncertainty has nothing to do with whether Itachi was stronger than Orochimaru when he was 11, 13, or 15. It has to do w/ how Kishimoto wants us to quantify Sharigan into the discussion of genius and what would a character like Shikkamaru be like if he actually put hard work in.



I think Itachi is actually supposed to be seen as the greatest genius in the manga, maybe only rivaled by Minato, who is the only person with similar(some might call better) "young prodigy" hype.
Everything that is been said or revealed about Itachi is about how exceptional he was @ any given age compared to his peers. Best academy student ever, anbu captain @ 13, MS around that time, sharingan mastery at 8, Hokage level mindset @ 7 etc. All of them are directly related to early progression, and that is directly linked to his genius.

I disagree with the sharingan remark, because its clearly not the sharingan that made Itachi shine above the rest. He was in a clan with numerous people with sharingan. From that point of view, every single Uchiha with a sharingan would be as talented and strong as Itachi, but they clearly weren't.
Itachi was a special case even among the Uchiha.



Transcendent Shinobi said:


> So Itachi can not only defeat like 100 Anbu black ops guys at once but then force Hanzo to retreat at 13 years old?



Nagato wasn't 13. 

And yes Itachi would be able to do all that shit, with a slight difference that he wouldn't get his shit pushed in by Hanzo. He'd activate Susano'o and mow him down like the fodder he is.

Nagato had power, but he was a weak shinobi compared to a guy like Itachi.


----------



## Shining Force (Feb 1, 2016)

Obito would probably strongest, summoning Kyuubi right off the bat and clashing with Kage Minato (though he lost), also massacring the Kiri-nin bunch.


----------



## Transcendent Shinobi (Feb 1, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> The problem with that is, if it is 7 years ago, then it means Orochimaru might have been looking for a suitable body to snatch.
> 
> But If it was 4 years ago, then he would be in his 1st body with 1 year left on the cool down.
> 
> ...



So a guy who's words are considered by everyone in the known world to be legend and majestic  is just a fodder................right.

God proclaimed Jesus to be his son but he is fodder.
 Allah proclaimed Muhammad to be his prophet but he is fodder. 
Yahweh proclaimed the Jews as his chosen people but he is fodder.

Hanzo proclaims three of the strongest next generation world class kage level shinobi but he himself is just fodder.
Hanzo was not scared of Nagato's godly powers but kjnew he had to take  a tactical retreat.

Hanzo murders a child Itachi just like he could have murdered the three sanin but let them live because they fought hard. And Itachi is not taking on all three sanin by himself. And Hanzo > Sanin.


----------



## Turrin (Feb 1, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> The problem with that is, if it is 7 years ago, then it means Orochimaru might have been looking for a suitable body to snatch.
> 
> But If it was 4 years ago, then he would be in his 1st body with 1 year left on the cool down.
> 
> ...


It's not 4 Years before the SPI. It's approximately 2 Years. As approximately 5 Years pass from SPI to End of PII (DBIV); as Naruto start the series at 12 and ends the series at 17. 

Part I ≈ 1 Year
Time-Skip ≈ 2.5 Years
Part II ≈ 1.5 Years 

So 7 Years from End of Part II (DBIV), would place Orochimaru vs Itachi, at aproximately 2 Years before Part I. Than by the end of Part I, that would be approximately 3 Years, which fits perfectly when Orochimaru's body transfers.

What doesn't fit is 7 Years Prior to Part I, as I already explained in my previous post.



> Like I said, I agree with parallel of both of them accomplishing the same feat.
> What I don't agree with is that Itachi and Sasuke didn't progress @ the same rate.
> So placing Itachi on Sasuke's age just so this paralell could make further sense is baseless, because Itachi was an Anbu captain @ 13. Sasuke was struggling to become a chuunin @ that point.
> It is no surprise that Itachi was @ a level necessary to defeat Orochimaru way before Sasuke ever was.


I'm just going to keep repeating my point, until you stop ignoring it:

As far as circumstances goes, circumstantially Kishimoto wanted to deceive readers into believing Sasuke was finally catching up to Itachi, so he drew a parallel between the two of them accomplishing the same feat, however Kishi intentionally left the differing circumstances for readers to see, and even throws shade on Sasuke's victory over Orochimaru after the Deidara fight. This too was intentional, so as to hint to readers, that Sasuke had not really caught up to his brother. Enter Itachi vs Sasuke fight, and we are lead to believe the entire fight that Sasuke had things under control and just when it looks like Sasuke has Itachi beat w/ Kirin, Itachi counters and displays his clear superiority, and it is also at this time that Sasuke looses to Orochimaru as well, w/ Orochimaru also taking hold off him. Basically a complete collapse of the illusion that Kishi set up that Sasuke had really caught his brother.



> maybe only rivaled by Minato, who is the only person with similar(some might call better) "young prodigy" hype.
> Everything that is been said or revealed about Itachi is about how exceptional he was @ any given age compared to his peers. Best academy student ever, anbu captain @ 13, MS around that time, sharingan mastery at 8, Hokage level mindset @ 7 etc. All of them are directly related to early progression, and that is directly linked to his genius.


My issue is this. Circumstance heavily factored into Itachi's growth. Itachi being born into the Uchiha-Clan, experience war at a young age, having to turn against his kinsman as a double agent, seeing Shisui's death, and killing his kinsman, all force Itachi to develop or directly caused him to develop quicker.

So here's the problem, if we say circumstance doesn't matter, than Sasuke is the greatest Genius as he reached a level of power at the age of 17 that Itachi would probably never reach even if he had lived to 80 in perfect health. Same thing w/ Obito. Same thing w/ other characters which circumstances essentially heavily impact their growth.

Now if we do account for circumstance, than we don't know how characters under the same circumstances would grow. Would Sasuke, Kakashi, etc... still grow slower than Itachi or would they grow faster?



> I think Itachi is actually supposed to be seen as the greatest genius in the manga,


I honestly think Shikkamaru is suppose to be the greatest Genius in the Manga. Shikkamaru was thee best Ninja or among thee best Ninja's of his generation in Part I and Part II w/o even really trying and just lazing around. When he actually did try he managed to invent a new Jutsu w/ Asuma Trench Knives, on top of developing a strategy to defeat Hidan, ontop of increasing the potency of his Shadow Bind, on-top of prepping the location in advance; in the span of like 2 Days or some crazy shit. And his IQ if far beyond all other character in the manga, to the point where he was looked to to lead the entire alliance after his father was killed.

I think if Shikkamaru actually had the drive to improve that Itachi's circumstance gave him and was born into the Uchiha Clan, his growth would probably exceed Itachi's. 

But since this is speculation I respect other opinions, including that Itachi is the greatest Genius

PS- Hanzo beats Itachi


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 2, 2016)

Turrin said:


> It's not 4 Years before the SPI. It's approximately 2 Years. As approximately 5 Years pass from SPI to End of PII (DBIV); as Naruto start the series at 12 and ends the series at 17.
> 
> Part I ≈ 1 Year
> Time-Skip ≈ 2.5 Years
> ...



If part 1 is 1 years long then you might be right. 

7 years still fit though, because that translates into 6 years prior to part 1, before Oro snatched his first body and the body snatching thing started with his obsession with sharingan. 
So it makes sense that Itachi was the first one he went after.



> I'm just going to keep repeating my point, until you stop ignoring it:


I think I'll do the same.




> As far as circumstances goes, circumstantially Kishimoto wanted to deceive readers into believing Sasuke was finally catching up to Itachi, so he drew a parallel between the two of them accomplishing the same feat, however Kishi intentionally left the differing circumstances for readers to see, and even throws shade on Sasuke's victory over Orochimaru after the Deidara fight. This too was intentional, so as to hint to readers, that Sasuke had not really caught up to his brother. Enter Itachi vs Sasuke fight, and we are lead to believe the entire fight that Sasuke had things under control and just when it looks like Sasuke has Itachi beat w/ Kirin, Itachi counters and displays his clear superiority, and it is also at this time that Sasuke looses to Orochimaru as well, w/ Orochimaru also taking hold off him. Basically a complete collapse of the illusion that Kishi set up that Sasuke had really caught his brother.



I'd say that is a flawed interpretation.

One point of that encounter is to show that Sasuke was able to defeat Orochimaru in a similar fashion to Itachi(not the same mind you, Sasuke reversed the ritual and absorbed Oro), indicating that he was able to finally master his sharingan which was underlined with the words from both brothers "your jutsus are useless against these eyes". 

*Master his sharingan like** Itachi already had, when he was 8.
*

Another point(even more crucial) is to underline that Sasuke now met the criteria he set to defeat Itachi 30-40 chapters earlier, that he and Orochimaru needed to merge to have a shot @ defeating him.

So your interpretation is flawed mainly because defeating Orochimaru isn't the prerequisite to defeat or catch up to Itachi, *absorbing him is.*



> My issue is this. Circumstance heavily factored into Itachi's growth. Itachi being born into the Uchiha-Clan, experience war at a young age, having to turn against his kinsman as a double agent, seeing Shisui's death, and killing his kinsman, all force Itachi to develop or directly caused him to develop quicker.
> 
> So here's the problem, if we say circumstance doesn't matter, than Sasuke is the greatest Genius as he reached a level of power at the age of 17 that Itachi would probably never reach even if he had lived to 80 in perfect health. Same thing w/ Obito. Same thing w/ other characters which circumstances essentially heavily impact their growth.
> 
> Now if we do account for circumstance, than we don't know how characters under the same circumstances would grow. Would Sasuke, Kakashi, etc... still grow slower than Itachi or would they grow faster?


Kakashi arguably entered the fray at very early ages like Itachi. He was a jounnin fighting alongside Minato in a war before he was 13. He witnessed his best friends die etc.

Sasuke didn't reach that level because of talent or skill. Because of the power ups he was given, one of them being one of the biggest ass pulls in the manga.

And again, if the circumstances were what set Itachi apart from the rest, then there would be many other geniuses raised in the same era as Itachi unless you think he was the only Uchiha child who lived in that era or any child for that matter.



> I honestly think Shikkamaru is suppose to be the greatest Genius in the Manga. Shikkamaru was thee best Ninja or among thee best Ninja's of his generation in Part I and Part II w/o even really trying and just lazing around. When he actually did try he managed to invent a new Jutsu w/ Asuma Trench Knives, on top of developing a strategy to defeat Hidan, ontop of increasing the potency of his Shadow Bind, on-top of prepping the location in advance; in the span of like 2 Days or some crazy shit. And his IQ if far beyond all other character in the manga, to the point where he was looked to to lead the entire alliance after his father was killed.
> 
> I think if Shikkamaru actually had the drive to improve that Itachi's circumstance gave him and was born into the Uchiha Clan, his growth would probably exceed Itachi's.
> 
> But since this is speculation I respect other opinions, including that Itachi is the greatest Genius



Shikamaru has intelligence and thats it. Itachi has that and everything else.
I don't think Shikamaru was even depicted as a genius on Sasuke's level. Shikamaru excelled only in one area and shined above the rest in that particular area.
And lets be real, Shikamaru doesn't have half the hype Itachi has.



> PS- Hanzo beats Itachi



Itachi murks him.
That guy is arguably the most dissapointing character who failed to live up to his hype, surpassing even Hiruzen in that area.



Transcendent Shinobi said:


> So a guy who's words are considered by everyone in the known world to be legend and majestic  is just a fodder................right.
> 
> God proclaimed Jesus to be his son but he is fodder.
> Allah proclaimed Muhammad to be his prophet but he is fodder.
> ...



Sorry to break the news to you pal, but Hanzo is fodder. And he wrecked Nagato with a bunch of paper tags.

"child Nagato" didn't do anything remotely impressive. Thats the end of the debate anyways.


----------



## Turrin (Feb 2, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> .
> 7 years still fit though, because that translates into 6 years prior to part 1, before Oro snatched his first body and the body snatching thing started with his obsession with sharingan.
> So it makes sense that Itachi was the first one he went after.


How?

Orochimaru stated in the Hiruzen battle that he is on his 2nd body. Meaning at the end of Part I, is his third transfer. Assuming Itachi is his first transfer attempt, he fails, and than transfer to a different body right after that. The time line would look like this


Approximately 7 Years before End of Part I, Transfer 1
Approximately 4 Years before End of Part  I, Transfer 2
Approximately 1 Years before End of Part I, Transfer 3

So Orochimaru would have needed to transfer bodies right at the Start of Part I, not at the end of Part I.

Edit: I should also add that this not only conflicts with Itachi's time-line (the Anbu Captain date), but also conflicts with Sasuke's time-line. Sasuke being stated to be 7+ Years old when the massacre happened, which was before Itachi confronted Orochimaru approximately 7 years before End of PI, would mean Sasuke should be 14~15 at the End of PI, while in reality he just turned 13. 



> One point of that encounter is to show that Sasuke was able to defeat Orochimaru in a similar fashion to Itachi(not the same mind you, Sasuke reversed the ritual and absorbed Oro), indicating that he was able to finally master his sharingan which was underlined with the words from both brothers "your jutsus are useless against these eyes".
> 
> Master his sharingan like Itachi already had, when he was 8.
> 
> ...


I view it like this, Sasuke placing the Binding Genjutsu on Orochimaru is to show him catching up to Itachi, while Sasuke absorbing Orochimaru is suppose to show Sasuke surpassing Itachi, as he not only stopped Orochimaru but actually reversed the ritual taking over Orochimaru. 

Of course later we learn this was narrative deception and Sasuke had not surpassed Itachi, but in that moment the narrative is trying to make that seem feasible.



> Kakashi arguably entered the fray at very early ages like Itachi. He was a jounnin fighting alongside Minato in a war before he was 13. He witnessed his best friends die etc.
> 
> Sasuke didn't reach that level because of talent or skill. Because of the power ups he was given, one of them being one of the biggest ass pulls in the manga.
> 
> And again, if the circumstances were what set Itachi apart from the rest, then there would be many other geniuses raised in the same era as Itachi unless you think he was the only Uchiha child who lived in that era or any child for that matter.


Kakashi was not a pure blood Uchiha, tho. 

Sasuke receiving power ups is no different in my mind than Itachi receiving Sharingan evolutions, due to circumstance making Itachi live through emotionally trying events.

Itachi obviously was more talent than the normal Uchiha, that's not what's up for discussion here. What is up for discussion is if other exceptionally talented characters were exposed to the same circumstance as Itachi how quickly would they grow. Because again we aren't just trying to figure out if Itachi is one of the most talent, but whether he is thee most talented individual.



> Shikamaru has intelligence and thats it. Itachi has that and everything else.
> I don't think Shikamaru was even depicted as a genius on Sasuke's level. Shikamaru excelled only in one area and shined above the rest in that particular area.
> And lets be real, Shikamaru doesn't have half the hype Itachi has.


Shikkamaru has the author hyping him in like ever interview ever. So yeah he has the hype. And as for talent, again the guy was at the top of his class and out performing most of the rookies w/o even trying; and all the shit he pulled off in a matter of days during the wind-arc.



> tachi murks him.
> That guy is arguably the most dissapointing character who failed to live up to his hype, surpassing even Hiruzen in that area.


Yeah that was the point of Hanzo's story arc, he was suppose to be disappointing strength wise relative to his hype, because he became rusty. Doesn't change the fact that according to the manga Prime-Hanzo is stronger than characters who are in turn >= Itachi.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 2, 2016)

Turrin said:


> How?
> 
> Orochimaru stated in the Hiruzen battle that he is on his 2nd body. Meaning at the end of Part I, is his third transfer. Assuming Itachi is his first transfer attempt, he fails, and than transfer to a different body right after that. The time line would look like this
> 
> ...



Yeah you are right. But I'm going with the idea that Itachi seems to be the start of Orochimaru's obsession and it makes sense that he went after him first. 7 years fit to that timeline, going after Itachi before his first transfer.
But it alone doesn't prove or disprove anything on my part.



> Edit: I should also add that this not only conflicts with Itachi's time-line (the Anbu Captain date), but also conflicts with Sasuke's time-line. Sasuke being stated to be 7+ Years old when the massacre happened, which was before Itachi confronted Orochimaru approximately 7 years before End of PI, would mean Sasuke should be 14~15 at the End of PI, while in reality he just turned 13.




I always thought Sasuke was 6, but if it is stated that he was 7 somewhere then I may have to review my stance on this.

If he was 7 during the time of the massacre, then it would mean that Itachi was hanging out with Akatsuki prior to leaving the village, which brings us to Strats crazy but not completely improbable theory of Itachi infiltrating Akatsuki.

I





> view it like this, Sasuke placing the Binding Genjutsu on Orochimaru is to show him catching up to Itachi, while Sasuke absorbing Orochimaru is suppose to show Sasuke surpassing Itachi, as he not only stopped Orochimaru but actually reversed the ritual taking over Orochimaru.


There is absolutely no evidence that Orochimaru even used the ritual on Itachi.
He confronted Itachi with the intention of defeating him and taking over his body and got his ass handed to him.
We know for a fact that Orochimaru needs his opponents weakened to be able to perform the ritual. That is why he waited for Sasuke get to get poisoned.
And we don't see the same goolike dimension around Itachi or Oro when they faced. 



> Of course later we learn this was narrative deception and Sasuke had not surpassed Itachi, but in that moment the narrative is trying to make that seem feasible.



From the narrative stance, Sasuke and Orochimaru needed to be one to defeat Itachi.
So the moment he absorbed Orochimaru, we were supposed to think that Sasuke was strong enough to face him.
Nothing more, nothing less.



> Kakashi was not a pure blood Uchiha, tho.


You mentioned Kakashi.



> Sasuke receiving power ups is no different in my mind than Itachi receiving Sharingan evolutions, due to circumstance making Itachi live through emotionally trying events.


No.
Literally the strongest character of the manga descended from the heaven and gave him a power he normally would never be able to achieve.
And before that, Itachi gave him his eyes, again giving him a power that he normally wouldn't be able to achieve.



> Itachi obviously was more talent than the normal Uchiha, that's not what's up for discussion here. What is up for discussion is if other exceptionally talented characters were exposed to the same circumstance as Itachi how quickly would they grow. Because again we aren't just trying to figure out if Itachi is one of the most talent, but whether he is thee most talented individual.


It is hard to know. 
But the thing is, Itachi had mad hype before he became an active shinobi and went through all that hardship.
Graduating academy in 1 year, mastering sharingan at 8, being able to think like a hokage @ 7.
If you think there were other characters with similar capability, then yes, they probably would advance in a similar pace to Itachi under similar conditions.
But of course this is all conjecture.



> Shikkamaru has the author hyping him in like ever interview ever. So yeah he has the hype. And as for talent, again the guy was at the top of his class and out performing most of the rookies w/o even trying; and all the shit he pulled off in a matter of days during the wind-arc.


Again, I think Itachi's 7 year old and 8 year old hype exceed whatever Shikamaru has.
I also don't think Shikamaru had the potential to become like Itachi due to having inferior tools at his disposal even if he had the same drive as Itachi.
There is no doubt that Shikamaru would beat anyone at a game of Shogi. But for me, his hype doesn't extend beyond that.


> Yeah that was the point of Hanzo's story arc, he was suppose to be disappointing strength wise relative to his hype, because he became rusty. Doesn't change the fact that according to the manga Prime-Hanzo is stronger than characters who are in turn >= Itachi.



You know my stance on Itachi vs Jiraiya so lets not get into it.
Anyways, I don't think 15 year old Nagato was remotely impressive against Hanzo and Hanzo wasn't remotely impressive against 15 year old Nagato.
So I hardly think Nagato at younger ages was stronger than Itachi, that is my main point.


----------



## Turrin (Feb 3, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Yeah you are right. But I'm going with the idea that Itachi seems to be the start of Orochimaru's obsession and it makes sense that he went after him first. 7 years fit to that timeline, going after Itachi before his first transfer.


Orochimaru was obsessed with developing Fuushi-Tensei well before he failed to get Itachi's body; that's why he was kicked out of Konoha before the Kyuubi Attack even happened. So i'm not sure I see your point here.



> But it alone doesn't prove or disprove anything on my part.


Your point was that 7 Years prior to the End of Part I made more sense from a time-line perspective than 7 Years Prior to DBIV, I just very clearly showed that is not the case; so how does that not prove anything 



> I always thought Sasuke was 6, but if it is stated that he was 7 somewhere then I may have to review my stance on this.


This was before the massacre happened:


Big Brother was 7 

I'm the same age as him



> If he was 7 during the time of the massacre, then it would mean that Itachi was hanging out with Akatsuki prior to leaving the village, which brings us to Strats crazy but not completely improbable theory of Itachi infiltrating Akatsuki.


So you'd sooner embrace Strat's admittedly crazy stance, than simply admitting that Kishimoto probably made a mistake w/ Orochimaru's time-line, that he then corrected in DBIV. Doesn't seem very fair man.



> There is absolutely no evidence that Orochimaru even used the ritual on Itachi.
> He confronted Itachi with the intention of defeating him and taking over his body and got his ass handed to him.
> We know for a fact that Orochimaru needs his opponents weakened to be able to perform the ritual. That is why he waited for Sasuke get to get poisoned.
> And we don't see the same goolike dimension around Itachi or Oro when they faced.


Orochimaru using the ritual against Itachi or not has nothing to do with my point. My point is that Sasuke gained Orochimaru's powers, while Itachi did not.



> From the narrative stance, Sasuke and Orochimaru needed to be one to defeat Itachi.
> So the moment he absorbed Orochimaru, we were supposed to think that Sasuke was strong enough to face him.
> Nothing more, nothing less.


Is that not literally what I said; that the narrative was trying to deceive readers into thinking that Sasuke had caught up to and ultimately surpassed Itachi; thus giving Sasuke "realistic" chance at revenge.



> No.
> Literally the strongest character of the manga descended from the heaven and gave him a power he normally would never be able to achieve.
> And before that, Itachi gave him his eyes, again giving him a power that he normally wouldn't be able to achieve.


And that same character's cock descended from the heaven's to impregnate Itachi's great great great great, etc... grand mother which than led to Itachi being born with a genetic mutation that blessed him w/ power that a normal individual does not have.

Plus even if we ignore the Hagoromo power up, Sasuke was still beyond Itachi, even before then w/ P-Susnao'o and EMS alone.



> It is hard to know.
> But the thing is, Itachi had mad hype before he became an active shinobi and went through all that hardship.
> Graduating academy in 1 year, mastering sharingan at 8, being able to think like a hokage @ 7.
> If you think there were other characters with similar capability, then yes, they probably would advance in a similar pace to Itachi under similar conditions.
> But of course this is all conjecture.


We are told that Itachi was exposed to war at age 4 and that had a profound effect on him; so that was before any of the events your citing. 



> Again, I think Itachi's 7 year old and 8 year old hype exceed whatever Shikamaru has.
> I also don't think Shikamaru had the potential to become like Itachi due to having inferior tools at his disposal even if he had the same drive as Itachi.
> There is no doubt that Shikamaru would beat anyone at a game of Shogi. But for me, his hype doesn't extend beyond that.


Itachi accomplished more early because he was driven, Shikkamaru was not. 

Having inferior tools, I agree is an issue, I just don't think it's necessarily very fair that Itachi gets called the superior Genius simply because he is born w/ superior tools; and if we go by that  then Sasuke is the greatest genius anyway.



> You know my stance on Itachi vs Jiraiya so lets not get into it.
> Anyways, I don't think 15 year old Nagato was remotely impressive against Hanzo and Hanzo wasn't remotely impressive against 15 year old Nagato.
> So I hardly think Nagato at younger ages was stronger than Itachi, that is my main point.


Hanzo was already Rusty against Nagato.

The bottom line is Jiraiya thought no one could defeat Hanzo. Jiriaya knows enough powerful Shinobi that him making that statement places Hanzo above Itachi. Nagato suggesting he may not have defeated Hanzo, if Hanzo hadn't gone soft, also places Hanzo above Itachi.

And honestly you have no counter argument whatsoever to assert otherwise, as citing Hanzo's performance as an Edo has as much relevance how Prime Hanzo would perform as Naruto/Sasuke's shit performance against Shin has as much relevance to how they performed against Kaguya, Tonrei, Each other at VOTE2, and Momoshiki.


----------



## IzayaOrihara (Feb 3, 2016)

Platypus said:


> *The using-the-most-recent-databook timeline]*
> , graduates at the Academy
> , awakens the Sharingan
> , is promoted to chuunin
> ...


I think we can go with this


----------



## Turrin (Feb 3, 2016)

IzayaOrihara said:


> I think we can go with this



Agreed


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Feb 3, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Orochimaru was obsessed with developing Fuushi-Tensei well before he failed to get Itachi's body; that's why he was kicked out of Konoha before the Kyuubi Attack even happened. So i'm not sure I see your point here.



That is true, I guess I always thought Itachi being Oro's first target to accomplish his goals and start of his sharingan obsession was meaningful in some way but now I guess there is no solid proof regarding that. He didn't have to be the first.



> Your point was that 7 Years prior to the End of Part I made more sense from a time-line perspective than 7 Years Prior to DBIV, I just very clearly showed that is not the case; so how does that not prove anything


I initially thought that, but now it feels like it makes no difference whether it was 7 years or 2 years before part 1 from that perspective.



> This was before the massacre happened:
> 
> 
> Big Brother was 7
> ...



Yeah like I said, Strat's idea is probable, but it seems like a detail that would be mentioned somehow, because without going further into details it seems like something that is hanging in the air. Not very solid.

Everything points towards Itachi joining the Akatsuki after the massacre in which case Itachi was 12-13 so it is very likely that Orochimaru encounter happened right around that time. 
So it is likely that it happened 4-5 years before part 1, not 7.



> Orochimaru using the ritual against Itachi or not has nothing to do with my point. My point is that Sasuke gained Orochimaru's powers, while Itachi did not.



You cited that as a proof to show that what Sasuke did was more impressive.

How could Itachi have gain Orochimaru's powers if Orochimaru didn't use the ritual on him ?



> Is that not literally what I said; that the narrative was trying to deceive readers into thinking that Sasuke had caught up to and ultimately surpassed Itachi; thus giving Sasuke "realistic" chance at revenge.



I never mentioned surpassing.
Because Kishimoto never implied that. The whole point of the fight against Itachi was to know whether Sasuke surpassed his brother or not.  So at that point we couldn't have known if that happened.

Absorbing Orochimaru was the prerequisite to face Itachi.



> And that same character's cock descended from the heaven's to impregnate Itachi's great great great great, etc... grand mother which than led to Itachi being born with a genetic mutation that blessed him w/ power that a normal individual does not have.



Thats completely irrelevant. I am not criticising the genetical heritage. But I am talking about a power that Sasuke could have never achieved on his own.Without outside interference, or more appropriately deux ex machina, Sasuke would have never become that strong.


> Plus even if we ignore the Hagoromo power up, Sasuke was still beyond Itachi, even before then w/ P-Susnao'o and EMS alone


.

Itachi gave him the EMS. 
Sasuke was never above Itachi with MS alone.



> We are told that Itachi was exposed to war at age 4 and that had a profound effect on him; so that was before any of the events your citing.



Seeing the war only made Itachi realize the importance of peace. Which may have give him a drive but it has nothing to do with him being more talented or skilled.



> Itachi accomplished more early because he was driven, Shikkamaru was not.


Sasuke was also driven but he wasn't able to graduate academy in 1 year, nor become a chuunin at 10. 
You should stop throwing that excuse around. 



> Having inferior tools, I agree is an issue, I just don't think it's necessarily very fair that Itachi gets called the superior Genius simply because he is born w/ superior tools; and if we go by that  then Sasuke is the greatest genius anyway.



I said this because I thought that was your line of thinking. Isn't that the whole reason why you think Sasuke was above Itachi ? Because of superior tools ? 



> Hanzo was already Rusty against Nagato.


I'm talking about in the flashback where he destroyed Nagato's legs with paper bombs.



> The bottom line is Jiraiya thought no one could defeat Hanzo. Jiriaya knows enough powerful Shinobi that him making that statement places Hanzo above Itachi. Nagato suggesting he may not have defeated Hanzo, if Hanzo hadn't gone soft, also places Hanzo above Itachi.
> 
> And honestly you have no counter argument whatsoever to assert otherwise, as citing Hanzo's performance as an Edo has as much relevance how Prime Hanzo would perform as Naruto/Sasuke's shit performance against Shin has as much relevance to how they performed against Kaguya, Tonrei, Each other at VOTE2, and Momoshiki.



So show me what prime Hanzo was like... 
Exactly. 

And again, I'm basing this off solely on Nagato vs Hanzo in Nagato's flashback. Neither of them did anything remotely impressive.


----------



## TobiramaSS (Feb 3, 2016)

Wasn't Obito 13 when he awakened MS? That would technically make him the strongest feat wise. Otherwise probably Nagato or Hiruzen.


----------



## Turrin (Feb 3, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> That is true, I guess I always thought Itachi being Oro's first target to accomplish his goals and start of his sharingan obsession was meaningful in some way but now I guess there is no solid proof regarding that. He didn't have to be the first.
> .


I think Itachi was the reason he was obsessed with an Uchiha Body, but not the reason he was obsessed with immortality, and why he created Fuushi Tensei in the first place. 



> I initially thought that, but now it feels like it makes no difference whether it was 7 years or 2 years before part 1 from that perspective.


Except 7 Years before Part I, doesn't make sense time-line wise.



> Yeah like I said, Strat's idea is probable, but it seems like a detail that would be mentioned somehow, because without going further into details it seems like something that is hanging in the air. Not very solid.
> 
> Everything points towards Itachi joining the Akatsuki after the massacre in which case Itachi was 12-13 so it is very likely that Orochimaru encounter happened right around that time.
> So it is likely that it happened 4-5 years before part 1, not 7.


Why wouldn't we just take DBIV's estimate then, instead of pulling 4-5 Years out of our asses?



> You cited that as a proof to show that what Sasuke did was more impressive.
> 
> How could Itachi have gain Orochimaru's powers if Orochimaru didn't use the ritual on him ?
> 
> ...


Grim my point is that the Orochimaru fight was there to show Sasuke's achieving his revenge had become plausible. Him replicating Itachi's feat, made it seem like Sasuke was catching Itachi, so when he absorbed Orochimaru and gained further power, it seemed feasible he could have surpassed Itachi. Later we learn this isn't true, but at the time, the manga wanted readers to believe Sasuke had a chance, and that is where I feel the importance of drawing the parallel between Sasuek and Itachi, in how they handled Orochimaru, as well as Sasuke taking it a step further lies.



> Thats completely irrelevant. I am not criticising the genetical heritage. But I am talking about a power that Sasuke could have never achieved on his own.Without outside interference, or more appropriately deux ex machina, Sasuke would have never become that strong.


Itachi could have never achieved Sharingan Kekkai Genkai on his own, w/o Hagoromo passing that line genetically to him



> Itachi gave him the EMS.
> Sasuke was never above Itachi with MS alone.


So circumstance gave Sasuke EMS, just like circumstance caused Itachi to develop Sharingan up top MS. To me it's the same thing, as nether power relied on talent to be achieved.



> Seeing the war only made Itachi realize the importance of peace. Which may have give him a drive but it has nothing to do with him being more talented or skilled.


It has to do with progress. If Itachi has the drive to work hard to improve at age 4, while X Shinobi doesn't get that drive to age 7. It's not surprising that Itachi at age 10 is stronger than X at age 10, even if they were equally as talented or even if X was slightly more talented.



> Sasuke was also driven but he wasn't able to graduate academy in 1 year, nor become a chuunin at 10.
> You should stop throwing that excuse around.


Was Sasuke driven from the age of 4 like Itachi?

And were not talking about Sasuke, were talking about Shikkamaru.



> I said this because I thought that was your line of thinking. Isn't that the whole reason why you think Sasuke was above Itachi ? Because of superior tools ?


I said Sasuke is above Itachi, if we ignore circumstance, if we take into account circumstance I think Shikkamaru is above Itachi.



> I'm talking about in the flashback where he destroyed Nagato's legs with paper bombs.


Yeah he had already fallen off the right path and declined by then.



> So show me what prime Hanzo was like...
> Exactly.
> 
> And again, I'm basing this off solely on Nagato vs Hanzo in Nagato's flashback. Neither of them did anything remotely impressive.


And that is ridiculously unfair, because that was not Prime-Hanzo ether.

And no I don't have to show anything, as we are told what to expect from Prime-Hanzo and it's above Itachi, and that's all we need to know.


----------

