[CatoRenasci]

every knight's armor I have ever seen is built for smaller men - and they would have been the ones to live a "good" life.

I thought of that, too. However, the surviving armor is almost all plate from the 15th-17th centuries. Before the 14th century (when the climate changes happened), the armor was mostly chainmail (with bits of plate and helms) of which little has survived. Perhaps an interesting comparison would be sword length -- since a taller person would use a longer sword, ceterus paribus. I don't recall whether early medieval broadswords were longer than later medieval broadswords, but again, far fewer examples from before 1400 survive.

[4CJ]

I don't recall whether early medieval broadswords were longer than later medieval broadswords, but again, far fewer examples from before 1400 survive.

Combination sword length and weight?

[JasonC]

No, doesn't follow. The primary determinant of sword length is not a man's height, but how the sword was used, tactically. Swords meant for fighting from horseback against infantry are not the same as swords meant for infantry with shields trying to get inside the reach of other infantry with spears, and neither are the same as swords meant for aristocratic dueling one on one, in little of no armor. Tactics change with every shift in weapons, armor, and the social organization and mobilization of armies. They will bounce around like hem lengths, not track average height.