Although this first point is not necessarily historical, size and strength of unarmored and armored combatants is heavily discussed in the Western Martial Arts community. Generally, most agree that size offers its inherent advantages (reach, natural strength, etc.) but skill is certainly a dominant factor in a fight. In modern sports, the practice of separating contestants by weight/height is very common practice.

Beyond current analyses on medieval styles of combat, the many European treatises speak at great lengths on the importance of strength in combat, and devote much less time to the stature of individuals. A stronger opponent would ostensibly have greater endurance and control both his and his opponents' movements. The 16th century fencing master Antonio Manciolino mentions the size of combatants in organized duels and how each should properly arm and protect himself according to his height or strength compared to the other.

In his [Paradoxes of Defence](http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paradoxes_of_Defence_(George_Silver), the verbose George Silver seemed quite convinced that, generally speaking, the man of smaller stature was at a distinct disadvantage if all else was equal.

perhaps not as dangerous as some would suggest. While someone like Hafthor is very athletic for his size, the key point is 'for his size'. Battles are lengthy affairs and someone who is 6'10 and nearly 30 stone will gas very quickly. A good comparison would be heavyweight boxers, who tend to top out at a tad under 20 stone because if you get much bigger it's almost impossible to maintain sufficient aerobic fitness. And this is excluding the fact that fighters in the past did not have access to the plethora of enhancements that a modern strongman does, so there is quite frankly no chance that you would come across someone who is the size of a WSM competitor on a battlefield.