Point is, it's very likely that we don't know what Y truly was, because the data we have, from tombs where the upper classes are very plausibly heavily overrepr

Point is, it's very likely that we don't know what Y truly was, because the data we have, from tombs where the upper classes are very plausibly heavily overrepresented, is not from a statistically average population-wide sample. In which case, it is likely that warrior heights are not any taller, on average, than what's already in that data. (i.e., warrior heights not any taller than generic upper-class male heights.) In any case, 167cm is probably an over-estimate. The latest research puts the average at 163.1. (And again this perhaps skews high rather than low.) For a snapshot, see: https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png https://i.ibb.co/FXZjNSL/Bronze-Age-Height.png In Greece today the average height is nearly 1.8m. So there is a big difference that can't really be handwaved away. You're right about the global average, but, in HEMA practitioners who might investigate the historical use of weapons, I'd bet that the average height is also around 1.8m! We might learn a thing or two if we give a 1.63m Filipino swordmaster a Naue II sword, but it's unlikely that a sword made for a 1.63m Greek is going to be a good fit for somebody 20cm taller. Come to think of it, that would be a fun experiment.