Sure, but he specifically mentioned studying historical sources. If he's into something like, say, what ARMA folks do with fencing manuals, we're not talking about looking at a bunch of sketches and having random ideas. Historical manuals have annotations explaining what is being pictured, with motions described and what not. Sure you'll have botched icons but if text contradicts what you see, you'll test all variations and draw conclusions based on what's effective. Just because this poor video picked the flashiest imagery he had at hand doesn't mean this is what he's using as a reference.
WRT several adjacent threads here it's important to keep in mind that arms and armor changed over time. It's easy to say "meh, quality chainmail wouldn't have been pierced using this bow and this arrow" but it's quite likely that these techniques were rarely used by the time regular army had access to proper protective gear. He mentioned firearms in his video and noted that fast archery declined because of it. Could be but firearms were result of "we need more power to penetrate that armor" which in turn was caused by "we need better protection from these heavy swords" which were response to armor, and so on. I bet folks who were into art of war some hundreds of years ago had their own version of Moore's law. ;]
WRT several adjacent threads here it's important to keep in mind that arms and armor changed over time. It's easy to say "meh, quality chainmail wouldn't have been pierced using this bow and this arrow" but it's quite likely that these techniques were rarely used by the time regular army had access to proper protective gear. He mentioned firearms in his video and noted that fast archery declined because of it. Could be but firearms were result of "we need more power to penetrate that armor" which in turn was caused by "we need better protection from these heavy swords" which were response to armor, and so on. I bet folks who were into art of war some hundreds of years ago had their own version of Moore's law. ;]