Roman history is generally marked by the renowned and accurate scholarship from ancient sources, such as Livy and Tacitus. There is a relatively in depth understanding of the general mythology surrounding the founding of the Kingdom of Rome, the later republic, and early Roman Empire from these sources. The written sources decline in quality, depth, and reliability when discussing the third century in the empire, however. The main example of this reality is the Historia Augusta, one of the most notorious ancient literary sources we have, and with a huge amount of scholarship discussing its controversial and unreliable content. And yet, it is hugely important to the understanding of events and people in the time period it covers. 

For a reason still heavily debated by scholars, the anonymous author of the HA set out deliberately to mislead readers. As one example of the HA’s unreliability, it alleges itself to be written by six different authors from between the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine in the third to fourth century. However, textual analysis of the style and word choice has proved with almost certainty that the HA was written by just a single author more than a century later than it claims. The HA itself is a series of biographies of Roman emperors, but many of the descriptions are clearly intended to be humorous rather than factual. Its motive isn’t very discernable either, though any political leanings seem to show that the work was written in favor of the senatorial elite of the late fourth century. It also shows a pagan bias, in opposition to the rise of Christianity during this time.

The longest book of the HA, the Vita Divi Aureliani, is 50 chapters long and exemplifies the untrustworthiness of the source. For example, the lengthy prologue details the author’s alleged discussions with prefect of Rome Junius Tiberianus, who has asked the author to write about Aurelian. Hilariously, the Tiberianus is quoted as telling the anonymous author, “Write as you will. You will be safe in saying whatever you wish, since you will have as comrades in falsehood those authors [Livy, Sallust, Cornelius Tacitus, and Trogus] whom we admire for the style of their histories.” (2, 1) The author later mentions an almost certainly fabricated event in which a young Aurelian was adopted by one Ulpius Crinitus, whose existence is completely unattested outside of the HA. 

Another example comes after a foreign invasion of a Gallic tribe comes astoundingly near the city of Rome. The author of the HA claims that the Sibylline Books, a series of ancient prophecies acquired by the senate from the time of the Roman Kingdom, were consulted by various senators. Other than being utterly embellished by invented speeches and details, this event is also an example of the HA’s senatorial and pagan bias—stressing the importance of the senate in this situation, as well as showing that pagan rituals still had significance. One final myth that the HA professes is the idea that there was a sort of “interregnum” after Aurelian’s death in which his wife ruled. Once taken to be true, recent research has disfavored the historicity of this claim.The amount of false padding of stories and tall tales suggests that the author of the HA felt Aurelian deserved a biography this long, however. The biography of Aurelian is saturated with made-up documents, speeches, and individuals, likely to achieve the author’s wishes, and necessary due to the meager details his sources had provided him with. Thus as the sources of the Roman third century have failed modern historians, they also failed the HA’s anonymous author, also contributing to the lack of cross-checking possible with the HA. For one, many of the historian and former soldier Ammianus Marcellinus’ books are missing regarding the third century. Regarded as a faithful and accurate historian, it is a shame that this literature has been lost. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that both the HA’s author and Ammianus used the lost Annales by Virius Nicomachus Flavianus. The lost Kaisergeschichte, a source proposed by modern historian Enmann, has also been used to explain similarities between the HA, Caesares by Aurelius Victor, Breviarium, by Eutropius, and the anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus.