Military experts of the sixteenth and even seventeenth centuries differ widely in their estimation of the value of steel armour in battle, and many of them strove valiantly against its growing partial abandonment. James I. is said to have made the remark that body-armour was a double protection; for it secured the wearer from being injured, and also prevented him from injuring others! It became impossible to forge armour, for man and horse, proof against the improved musketry fire; and little by little the old chivalry of battle had to give way against overwhelming odds. The full effect of the movement was, however, much retarded by various causes. The earlier firearms were clumsy, dilatory, heavy to carry, and ineffective in practice; besides new supports, formations and tactics took time to organise and develop before firearms could reap the full benefit of their superiority, which they eventually achieved with the musket, in conjunction with “covers” of halbardiers, and especially pikemen, before these footmen’s weapons were superseded by the bayonet. These causes, and the increasing demand for lighter and more easily manœuvred troops, and newer tactics demanding greater mobility and longer marches, brought about the downfall of the man-at-arms, who was effective only on the level; and with his disuse plate-armour had ceased to be generally worn. PART VI. A SLIGHT SKETCH OF SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT COLLECTIONS ABROAD. _The Königliche Zeughaus at Berlin._ This museum is rich in staff weapons and firearms, and is rapidly accumulating a very fine collection of armour, which has been greatly enriched by the purchase of the remarkably fine series of suits and weapons formerly belonging to Prince Carl of Prussia. The present emperor takes a great interest in the place, and has himself added several suits of armour. _The Königliche Historische Museum at Dresden._