Maybe it's easier(reflected by speed movment). But what about DAMAGES ? Why do you think most fighters were using any kind of sword instead of daggers on battlefields ?
Most fighters were using spears on the battlefield. They had swords,axes, and maces, as back up weapons when the enemy got too close. If for whatever reason the enemy got even closer (think grappling) they would bring out the dagger. Or when they find that their sword is a piece of shit, which most of them were when fighting mail armor and higher, they brought out the dagger to stab the other person in the eye, the mouth, the anywhere not covered in armor that a sword just didn't have the precision to hit.
Thats the realism argument.
The balance argument is, block down and S key.
Edit:
Which may end up being broken in a few hits because two-handers have crazy high damaging shield-breakers now. Persian Battle Axe has 51c damage at +3, dude. I think it's going to become a popular weapon in the near future.
I doubt it. You have no idea how many people are WHINING in the NH battles because they have to use 96 speed unbalanced battle axes instead of their 92 speed danish's or 98 speed HBS. Women.