The reign of the Roman emperors was defined by their imperial image which is cultivated as a reflection of the times in which they ruled. Nero is generally seen as a very poor emperor who brought about the ruin of Rome, while Hadrian is described as a prosperous emperor who ensured imperial and Roman continuity. The two emperors, however, shared similar traits and activities outside of their imperial duties, which were both similar in their oddity and notably different in their depiction. While both emperors were interested in Greek culture, Nero's excesses and patronage of the arts were seen as emblematic of the decline of the Roman state, while Hadrian's "philhellenism" was seen as a positive adaptation of provincial practices. This difference in imperial perception is attributable both to the military and administrative success, or lack thereof, of each emperor, but also to the times and conditions in which each emperor ruled. Imperial behavior outside of what was considered appropriate therefore only became a problem if the emperor proved incompetent. Nero's patronage of Greek art was seen as an indication of his imperial excesses and derelictions of duty rather than cultural appropriation. Nero spent recklessly both on public works and on the construction of his personal palace.1 He relied on the resources of the empire to finance his extravagance, to the extent that, following the Great Fire from 64 CE, he was forced to devalue the currency in 64 CE. to finance the reconstruction.2 Nero was most likely simply devoid of any financial and administrative acumen, as it was believed that the only pleasure he derived from possessing wealth was spending it, and those who kept track of their spending were misers.3 He was...... middle of paper ......links and respective strengths and weaknesses. Nero's lavish spending, although similar in magnitude to that of Augustus, was reckless at the time simply because the empire could not sustain these expenses due to a lack of military conquest and therefore a drop in income. Likewise, Nero's travels to the provinces were unwise because they had no imperial goals applicable to the state. While Hadrian traveled largely to fortify and codify the Roman presence in provincial regions, Nero traveled for leisure and personal interest. Although Hadrian undoubtedly had a great deal of fun in the same way, the journeys were no less official in their purpose and intention. Furthermore, by Hadrian's time the empire was at its peak territorially, and his excursions into provincial regions maintained the circulation of grain and silver and ensured a smooth transition of power..