Does "Naked" mean Without Armour?

[M. Demetrius]

Well, anybody can believe anything they want, with or without supporting or disproving evidence. As Matthew said earlier, it's important to see what the originals said about it, and what the idiom (if any) meant in other writings. Amongst the Continental "Celts", there was a group of special warriors called Gaesatae who fought with no clothing at all. They had a religious belief that the earth goddess would protect them if they were nude, and performed the proper rituals before the battle. In really cold weather, it would be senseless to march far without at least a cloak. So odds are, they wore whatever was normal, then before the battle, stripped down, and fought with no clothing or armor, just weapons and shield.

I don't know how effective that belief system was, though. Battle accounts that I've read don't make a distinction between the naked dead and the clothed dead. (Somewhat reminiscent of the Plains Indians' belief in their "medicine (ghost) shirts" having the ability to stop bullets. Didn't work so well at Wounded Knee, if we can believe history).

Given the choice, I'd rather have armor, helmet, big old scutum, and a bunch of likeminded fellows on either side of me than attack a group of any kind of warriors in the buff. Yep. Call me faithless in that respect: I don't think the earth goddess knows who I am, let alone offers me any protection, clothed or not. But that's just me.

Fact:
Armor stops or lessens most all hand weapon wounds.
Paint doesn't.