Why is the Historia Augusta Unreliable?

As I am certainly not as well read as many of you, may you please tell me why the Historia Augusta is a horrible source of religion?
 
There's many reasons.

It was antedated by at least one century. Which mean the author lived in a Christianizing Empire (which he seems to loathe) and not in the reforming empire of Diocletian.

That alone wouldn't be that problematic if the author didn't have some score to settle with Christians (St Hieronymus' works are especially mocked) and with the emperors he doesn't like, using many biographies that he either select or mock.

There's entieres passages that contradict other sources, but also plausibility itself : one of my favourites is when the emperor stop his progression in his luxury chariot (I think it's a chariot, but I'd should check later) in plain street to take the author within and politely discuss.
A bit like Obama stopping the presidential car to allow an obscure and not that competent journalist that happened to pass by, only to discuss Pulitzer-scale material.

Now...I wouldn't say unreliable, exactly. It's one of the few sources on Late Antiquity, and short of that, we don't have much. So, while it's not really reliable, once you're wary to not take what it say without criticism or at least the mother of all grains of salt, it can be useful.
 
Top