The rule of the Roman emperors was defined by their imperial image which is cultivated as a reflection of the time in which they ruled. Nero is typically perceived as a very poor emperor who brought ruin to Rome while Hadrian is portrayed as a successful emperor who ensured imperial and Roman continuity. Both emperors, however, shared similar traits and activities outside of their imperial duties, which were at once similar in their strangeness and strikingly different in their portrayal. While both emperors were interested in Greek culture, Nero's excesses and patronage 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 in relation to the time and conditions under 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 indicative of his imperial excesses and dereliction of duty rather than cultural appropriation. Nero spent recklessly both in the creation of public works but also in the construction of his personal palace.1 He relied on the resources of the empire to finance his extravagances, so much so that following the great fire of 64 AD he was forced to devalue the currency in to finance the reconstruction.2 Nero most likely simply lacked any financial and administrative sense, as he believed that the only pleasure he derived from possessing wealth was to spend it, and those who kept track of their expenses were misers.3 Furthermore it was… middle of the paper… bonds and respective strengths and weaknesses. Nero's lavish spending, although also similar in scale to that of Augustus, was imprudent at the time simply because the empire could not sustain the spending due to a shortage of military conquest and therefore a decline in revenue. Likewise, Nero's provincial travels were unwise because they served no imperial purpose applicable to the state. While Hadrian traveled primarily to fortify and codify the Roman presence in provincial areas, Nero traveled for leisure and personal interest. While Hadrian no doubt enjoyed himself greatly in a similar way, the voyages were no less official in purpose and intent. The empire, moreover, in Hadrian's time was at its greatest territorial power, and his excursions into provincial areas kept the flow of grain and money and ensured a smooth transition of power..