I suppose taller and heavier men were better at fighting with swords, axes and probably even bows. They could have used a heavier armor and a larger shield.
When the men of a tribe/people were, on average, significantly taller and muscular than their enemies did this play a role in battles outcome or was it negligible relatively to other factors?
At very low levels of social and military organisation, or in societies where social status is gained in ritualised fighting, individual size and strength can make a difference. In Homer's epics, for example, battle mostly takes the form of fluid, irregular encounters in which only the bravest at the front of the mass actually get in fights, often by directly challenging their opponents. In such a context, there is room for individual skill and strength to give warriors an edge. The heroes of the Homeric epics pride themselves in their capacity for violence. The story includes figures like Aias (Ajax) son of Telamon, who is bigger than other heroes and carries an enormous, almost impenetrable shield.
Once states and their armies become more organised, however, individual martial prowess stops to matter. In battles between ordered formations, morale (the will to fight) is far more important than strength or skill. After all, the formation as a whole is not affected by the loss of a single warrior; it is only defeated when its members are no longer prepared to work toward the common goal. Cohesion is lost when too many men are incapacitated or run away, so that the rest no longer trusts in their chances of survival. At that point the unit is broken; in the rout, many will be killed. A single warrior's strength or skill might save their life and dispatch a few enemies, but it won't turn the tide. It is far more important for the whole army to be willing to fight longer than the enemy than for any single of them to be particularly good at it.
This is why the Classical Greeks - Spartans included - did not believe there was much value in weapon proficiency training and argued that big muscles were useless for a warrior. To the Classical Greeks, the finest warrior was not a muscle-bound giant who could wield a massive shield and throw a javelin across the marketplace. He was nimble and agile, an all-rounder and a team player who was able to put up with cold, heat, hunger, thirst, exhaustion and pain, without abandoning the men at his side.