Going to resuscitate this thread. King Arthur (2004 Clive Owens version) is making the rounds on cable. One way to avoid getting into trouble with the historical record is to pick periods of history where there is almost no historical record to get in trouble with, which is what this movie does. I like this movie a lot and it was a box office success.
English history effectively stops from the end of Roman occupation until the late 9th century. Literacy dropped to essentially a few hundred monks at monastaries, and the language was changing so much over this period that it makes tracking a historical record even more difficult. Making Arthur Roman is as reasonable as any other theory about the historical basis for King Arthur. Society was devolving into fiefdoms that were often no more than a few miles across, and feudalism would develop based on these Germanic warlords or Roman nobles offering protection to the local peasantry in return for food and their fealty.
The Saxons were not mindless barbarians, but more like refugees fleeing some fairly awful tribes coming in behind them out of eastern Europe. The climactic Battle of Badon was actually fought, but historical records are not even clear on who the two sides were or why they fought. It is likely that it was a battle between Celtic Britons (Owens side) and Saxons (Stellan Skarsgard's side), but why the battle occurred is not clear. It also may have not been much more than a skirmish between 500 to 1,000 men on each side.
