u/kimbanmyong

I made this chart to map the Valentinianic and Theodosian dynasties and the increasingly fragmented succession of the late Western Roman Empire, from AD 364 to 480.

The upper section shows how marriages and biological descent connected the eastern and western courts. Although imperial authority was often shared among relatives, this was no longer the formal collegiate system of the Tetrarchy. After the death of Theodosius I in 395, the two courts became permanently separate in practice, even though the empire continued to be understood as a single Roman state.

In the West, child emperors and short-lived rulers increasingly depended on powerful generals and kingmakers such as Stilicho, Aetius, Ricimer and Orestes. Some emperors were recognised only by the western court, while others were imposed or rejected by Constantinople.

The chart continues beyond the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 because Julius Nepos remained the western emperor officially recognised by the eastern court until his death in 480.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome, especially regarding disputed legitimacy, co-rulers and the relationships between the eastern and western courts.

I made this chart to visualise the transformation of Roman imperial government from Diocletian’s Tetrarchy to the Constantinian dynasty, covering the period from AD 284 to 364.

This is not a straightforward family tree. The upper section maps the marriages, biological descent and political relationships connecting the tetrarchs, Constantine and their relatives. The lower section shows the successive imperial colleges: sole Augusti, dyarchies, tetrarchies, Caesars, rival emperors and periods of civil war.

Diocletian attempted to organise succession through a hierarchy of two Augusti and two Caesars, but the abdications of 305 were followed by competing military proclamations and dynastic claims. Constantine eventually reunited the empire in 324, yet continued to distribute authority among his sons and other family members. Collegiate government therefore survived, but was gradually transformed from a system of appointed colleagues into a dynastic division of imperial power.

The succession diagram also shows how numbering becomes complicated when co-rulers and rival emperors are included rather than treated as a simple linear list.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome, especially regarding titles, regional jurisdictions and the dating of the various imperial colleges.

I made this chart to visualise the imperial succession and major breakaway regimes of the Crisis of the Third Century, from the death of Severus Alexander in AD 235 to the accession of Diocletian in 284.

The crisis was not a continuous absence of central government. For much of the period, one principal emperor or imperial family still claimed authority over the Roman Empire. The instability instead came from repeated military coups, civil wars, invasions, plague, economic disruption and regional separatism. The Gallic and Palmyrene empires temporarily ruled large territories outside the effective control of the central government.

The chart also shows early experiments in divided imperial rule. Valerian and Gallienus shared responsibility for the eastern and western theatres, while Carus later entrusted different regions to his sons Carinus and Numerian. These dynastic arrangements foreshadowed, without yet constituting, the more formal collegiate government of the Tetrarchy.

For clarity, the chart includes the principal emperors, dynasties and separatist regimes rather than every short-lived usurper or local rebellion.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome.

I made this chart to map the family, marriage and succession networks behind the Severan dynasty, from Septimius Severus’ victory in the civil wars of AD 193 to the death of Severus Alexander in 235.

Although the dynasty emerged from military conquest, the Severans repeatedly presented themselves as successors to the Antonine emperors. This connection was expressed through imperial names, alleged descent and dynastic marriage: both Caracalla and Elagabalus adopted the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, while Elagabalus briefly married Annia Faustina, a descendant of Marcus Aurelius.

The chart also highlights the central role of the Syrian imperial women—Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea—in preserving and restoring the dynasty after the interruption of Macrinus.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome, especially regarding the more complicated marriages and claims of dynastic continuity.

I made this chart to visualise the succession crisis usually known as the “Year of the Five Emperors”.

The name is slightly misleading, since the conflict did not end in AD 193. Pertinax and Didius Julianus briefly ruled at Rome, while Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus emerged from different provincial military bases. Nor did all five hold the same status at the same time: Niger remained an eastern rival, while Albinus was initially recognised as Caesar and Severus’ designated successor before claiming the title Augustus in 195/196.

The timeline therefore extends to AD 197, when Severus defeated Albinus at Lugdunum and became the empire’s sole ruler. The lighter sections indicate periods when a claimant had been proclaimed but was not recognised by the Senate.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome, especially regarding the uncertain dates of Albinus’ appointment as Caesar and later proclamation as Augustus.

I made this chart to map the family, marriage and adoption networks behind the Nerva–Antonine emperors, from Nerva’s accession in AD 96 to the death of Commodus in 192.

Although the dynasty is often described as a succession of “adoptive emperors”, the transfers of power were also shaped by marriage alliances and increasingly close biological relationships. The chart shows how Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were connected through several overlapping family lines.

In AD 161, Marcus Aurelius elevated Lucius Verus as co-Augustus, creating the first formal joint reign of two Roman emperors and an important precedent for later imperial co-rule. The dynasty eventually returned to direct hereditary succession when Marcus Aurelius was followed by his biological son Commodus.

Corrections and suggestions are very welcome, especially regarding the more complicated marriage and adoption connections.

I made this chart to show how the Year of the Four Emperors connected the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty with the rise of the Flavians.

The family trees place Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian within the wider imperial and aristocratic networks of the period. The timeline distinguishes between the moment each contender was proclaimed or began his revolt and the later point at which he was recognised by the Senate. This makes the overlapping claims of AD 68–69 more visible: emperors could now be created by provincial armies far from Rome, while senatorial recognition often followed military victory.

I would be very interested to hear any corrections or suggestions, especially regarding the chronology or family connections.

I have been working on a larger family tree of the Roman emperors and developed this section into a standalone chart of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. It focuses on how biological descent, marriage and adoption connected the Julian and Claudian families and shaped the imperial succession.

Some collateral relatives have been omitted for clarity. Corrections, questions and suggestions are very welcome!