ficant in both books is the skill and boldness of the leader in military affairs. As Thorpe writes in his Introduction to the biographies, "From . . . 768 until . . . 810, the reign of Charlemagne was one long and never-ending series of warlike enterprises" (Einhard 7). The two Charlemagne biographers, especially Einhard, portray their subject in a positive light. They lived and wrote in an era --the early Middle Ages--when it was taken for granted that a good leader was a powerful military leader, with the ability to be ruthless when necessary. Einhard knew and served Charlemagne personally; he can in no way be considered an objective observer. He sees Charlemagne as a god-like character living in a world of mere mortals. As we read in the Introduction, Einhard's work "in a number of ways . . . seems deliberately to obscure the truth, and always in favour of Charlemagne" (Einhard 17). However, from the historical perspective, this was done not merely to show Charlemagne in the best light possible, but to set a shining example for human behavior, for others to emulate as well, in the name of both honoring the king as a political and religious leader, and holding Christianity up as the way to salvation.
Although Einhard is certainly qualified to write his biography of Charlemagne, based on his 23-year personal and professional experiences with the man and the leader, but he loses some of his credibility because of his bias toward the man as both individual and symbol of leader and Christian. W
...