Though unless there is attestation in other sources, I'm not sure it quite matches the grand description given above. The senate, in a bout of moralizing, attempted to crack down on usury, stipulating that money lent at interest should be recalled and invested into land.
-
Octavian (Augustus) is at pains to point out that he made similarly massive donations to the public (RG 15) and that he bailed out the public treasury no less than four times, at a number significantly greater than what Tiberius spent (RG 17)
I suppose at some point it depends here on what we understand as a major crisis - evidently significant enough to drag in the emperor...but mostly because its consequences were confined to the landholding elite that dominated Roman politics.
-
-
I think the relative weight the sources give to it compared to the Sejanus affair - which occurs immediately prior in Tacitus and Dio (and chronologically) is illustrative. It is essentially a footnote in the back few years of Tiberius' reign.
-
I should note that, looking at his article, Bartlett's claim of evidence of 'significant capital outflows' (he more accurately notes it as a shortage of money in circulation, which is, I'd argue, more accurate) is balanced on T. Frank, "The Financial Crisis of 33A.D." (1935)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
My understanding is that the trigger was the insolvency of a major Alexandrian banking house specializing in shipping, and that it affected cities in Greece and Asia minor and may have even been felt as far north as Belgica, which suggests to me that it was pretty widely spread.
-
Right - and I am asking where that is in the sources or evidence? Dio, Suetonius and Tacitus do not say this. Barlett provides no additional sources in what I can find of his.
- 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.