Quote Originally Posted by davedove View Post
Exactly, except for ceremonial pieces where often bigger is better, in combat weapons you don't want the weapon any heavier than necessary. A certain amount of weight is required to do a certain job; any more just tires you out faster, not a good thing on the battlefield.
At this risk of dancing on a "weapons discussion" warning, I would submit that it is the skill and dedication of the wielder, not the weapon itself that will have the most impact. To continue Panache's example of the Rob Roy duel, the rapier should have been the perfect weapon for that engagement. It was lighter and faster than the broadsword. Yet it was the dedication of the wielder that won that fight.

Regarding the Wallace's two-hander, remember that you are talking about fighting armoured opponents. A longer, heavier blade would be a more effective can-opener. I hesitate to believe the blade was intended only as some sort of "anti-cavalry" option.