I think the Commentarii are a great example of how historical sources are generally inaccurate in some way, both because everyone has some bias (particularly the elite with the leisure to do the writing) and because most authors had some agenda for writing (particularly the elite- I think I’m repeating myself), but can still be useful because of what’s written between the lines or can be extrapolated, e.g. by comparing them to other sources.
I think the Commentarii are a great example of how historical sources are generally inaccurate in some way, both because everyone has some bias (particularly the elite with the leisure to do the writing) and because most authors had some agenda for writing (particularly the elite- I think I’m repeating myself), but can still be useful because of what’s written between the lines or can be extrapolated, e.g. by comparing them to other sources.