The "Scriptores Historiae Augustae, " or "Historia Augusta, " is a collection of biographies of Roman emperors, heirs, and claimants from Hadrian to Numerianus (117- 284 CE). The work, which is modeled on Suetonius, purports to be written by six different authors and quotes documents and public records extensively. Since we possess no continuous account of the emperors of the second and third centuries, the "Historia Augusta" has naturally attracted keen attention. In the last century it has also generated the gravest suspicions. Present opinion holds that the whole is the work of a single author (who lived in the time of Theodosius) and contains much that is plagiarism and even downright forgery.
The Loeb Classical Library edition of the "Historia Augusta" is in three volumes.
Antoninus Elagabalus ve Severus Alexander'in anlatıldığı kısımlar düşündürücüydü. Özellikle o dönem senatosunun düştüğü durumu anlamak adına öğreticiydi.
Bir yıldız'ı iki yerde gördüğüm sıkıntı yüzünden kırdım. Yayınevine bilgi verdim. Çevirmen ve Editöre konu iletildi.
Historia Augusta, Roma tarihine ilgi duyanlar için eğlenceli ve ilgi çekici bir kaynaktır. Yeter ki dipnorları gözden kaçırmayın.
History of the Roman Emperors from Caracalla through the Gordians. Really extensive coverage of Caracalla and Elagabalus. Mostly about their extravagances and their bloodthirsty acts. They brought about the end of the Antonian emperors and marked the beginning of a century of anarchy where emperors' reigns could be measured in months and sometimes even days. Shorter pieces about other emperors as they often didn't last long. Shows how the Senate had little to say in the matter as emperors were chosen by the Legions, and dispatched by them. Some of the emperors never even make it to Rome during their reign, and foreign birth among those chosen becomes more common. Not a scientific text but it gives the idea of how the Empire was beginning a general collapse.
The whole of the Historia Augusta is widely believed to be either a forgery, plagiarism, or both. Some of it must have been based on some real factual sources, but either the writer, writers, or later editors felt the need to fluff it up to make it more readable. As such this can be considered the Wikipedia of Roman History. Probably some facts in there, along with a bunch of conjecture and outright falsity. Makes for entertaining reading.