I also enjoyed reading about Einhard's Life of Charlemagne.  A lot of what we hear and read today, like you had mentioned, is used as propaganda and I think it was interesting to acknowledge Einhard's effort in writing Charlemagne's biography when it was unusual to do so, especially because much of the population was unable to read.   I also agree that this biography should be preserved for future generations to learn about Charlemagne and also compare historical notes that has been implemented throughout history.  Like you said, we are now aware and have experienced corrupt leaders and understand the abuses of propaganda that can help us and future generations to find the right and wrongs of a potential leader.  

What part of the biography do you think is excessively sugar-coated to fit this flawed belief of such a historic figure?