Michael, I think you’re going to need to tell us more about the Roman financial crisis of 33 AD.
-
Tacitus really wants to connect this to the Sejanus affair, but the banking crisis in in 33, Sejanus is dead in 31, so I'm not sure I buy it.
I'm not sure we should regard the affair as a major crisis. Dio gives it literally only a sentence (58.21.5) and thinks it mainly important because it resulted in the death of a notable equestrian by suicide before Tiberius bails everyone out.
-
-
Mostly it is one more episode to file under "political and cultural elites do not understand debt instruments and every so often make moralizing decisions about debt instruments with catastrophic results" - a file that, is, of course, very much still open for new entries.
-
And I suppose I should note that these - Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio - are all sources that like to magnify Tiberius' failings, so if they are treating this as a fairly minor, brief hiccup rather than a major crisis, I tend to believe them, barring other evidence I've missed.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I disagree. The historian Charles Bartlett called it a "severe economic crisis", and every financial and economic historian I have read on the subject thought it was a serious financial crisis. Perhaps it takes people with banking experience or knowledge of financial history...
-
to recognize how familiar the sequence of events were, beginning with years of capital outflows prior to the crisis. At any rate if this were only a minor event, it is hard to imagine why Tiberius, someone not famously liberal with his money, would have made such...
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.