Presumably the intent being to convert debt assets into land assets. Instead, land prices collapsed as leveraged aristocrats rushed to sell land to cover their debts (which of course made it impossible for them to cover their debts).
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)
-
Given that the study of the Roman economy has turned on its head twice since 1935, I'd myself have been pretty cautious citing Frank on such a point. I too have piled through his An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (1933/1940)...
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
You may be right. It was probably given less weight in classical, military and imperial histories than it was subsequently given in the financial and economic histories that were put together much later.
-
Subsequent financial and economic histories would be exclusively modern and would be reliant on the literary sources, plus - maybe - some epigraphic evidence (but Bartlett cites none?)
- 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.