From your reading, does Einhard’s description of Charlemagne in “Charlemagne: A Word Portrait” seemed “touched up” or “lifelike”? Consider than Einhard was a friend and companion to Charlemagne. Do you think this shaped his "portrait"? What about Einhard's place in Charlemagne's court? Did Einhard have an agenda in portraying Charlemagne the way he did? Does a "touched up" history invalidate it as a historical source? Explain your answer with examples.
Textbook in use is Western Civilization volume 1---- If not available your opinion may be ideal with examples please no plagiarism
Sample Solution