No problem. I guess I'm touchy about the myth too, having heard it all the time as well (and seeing it in major motion pictures, TV shows, etc... as well).

Military history is just fascinating to me, but not just the simple tactics and outcomes of battles. I get really into the effects terrain, administration, logisitics, technological innovation, and other "secondary" considerations have on the battles (and the course of the wars).

For example, I find it very interesting that early firearms (handheld) didnt supplant bows or crossbows because they were more effective, but because of logistic and manpower issues.

A couple weeks can make a proficient musketeer, while it takes years to train proficient bowmen. Also, 100 rounds of musket ammunition takes up a large sack, where 100 arrows takes up a large barrel. It's amazing to think that the machine guns and battle rifles of today were invented because 500 years ago someone decided cheap and easy was better than accuracy and rapid fire.