POD idea for a late republican Roman bank:

So I am looking for a good POD for a late republican bank.
The reason for this period is firstly that I am more familiar with it than the empire, and that it gives us a lot of room for the development of the Mediterranean world and Rome herself. At least a longer lasting Republic.


I am thinking of 88 BC.
Rome had just suffered the Social War, Sulla as Consul had been forced by Marius to march on Rome itself to keep his command and Imperium intact and the war versus Mitridates VI in Greece.


Now Rome was suffering a shortage of money. The last years had seen the invasion of the Cimbri and other German/Germanic tribes, several slave revolts as well as the Socii war. Now Asia province was at this time the riches of ale Roman provinces but also a place devastate bye unregulated publican.
If we see a worse devastation of Italian farm land, specifically the ager publicus, Rome would be even more strapped for cash that OTL. Sulla was a firm boni, and a supporter of the mos maistrum, but also a pragmatist. If he allows a union of the publicani and other 'money-men' to forme som sort of proto firm as long as the front the cash for the was in the east. The ager publicus could be used as safety for the loan, and interest could be paid from a percentage of the looting of the east.


Any thoughts, comments or ideas?
 
The question is not from whom the romans might adopt a banking system.
We find temple banks, especially in the easter part of the Mediterranean. Ptolemaic Egypt stands out her, but there are other like the temple of Aleskapois at Delos.


Now the Romans needs to get a shake up if they are to embrace banking in a large scale than personal. The problem with this is that the Roman are fond of agriculture. If one reads Cato you will get a picture. That is why I prose large detestation of Italian farm land during the Scoii war.


Now this Pod has other butterflies that I have been thinking of as well.
If Pompey Strabo does not die in his camp outside Rome the young Pomepy Magnus will not have the same meteoric rise under Sullas second march on Rome as OTL. Now this is important for the post-Sulla Republic. Pompey and Crassus (and later Caesar) tore down the Sullan constitution. Most likely they did this too further themselves quickly.


Now if Pompey`s father Strabo commands under Sulla the young Pompey is sett back several years.
Crasuss will still be who he is, and might try to get in on the banking, who stands in a very good position to capitalize from Sulla`s proscriptions. And Ceasar we can remove bye having him keep in the proscription lists. That means that when Sulla leaves Rome we will see some very different men in charge of Rome than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Is there a major change from OTL? I mean, the publicani basically ran joint stock companies OTL.

If you can, I'd check out Banking and business in the Roman world, by Jean Andreau. Tis very interesting.
 
Is there a major change from OTL? I mean, the publicani basically ran joint stock companies OTL.

In OTL Sulla got what was left of the treasury in Rome and looted the Temples in Greece and Asia province too pay for his war against Mitridates VI.

Argentarii in Rome received deposits and made loans, but loans are one thing, banks are another. It is the difference between informal and external sources of capital and credit intermediation. Also what volume could these small groups manage?

We should presume that markets in ancient times were far from the anonymous markets of today.
The land-owners and merchants were known by reputation by moneylenders. The Patrician and Knightly classes was not that large after all.
They constituted the kind of loose commercial groups known from other agricultural economies.

And doe we assume that Roman banks were run for no other motives than earning money?


If you can, I'd check out Banking and business in the Roman world, by Jean Andreau. Tis very interesting.

Parts of the book are on googel books and amazon has it for only 20£. Thats the second book I have bought because of you.
And i agree it is very interesting. I would like more soft science TL.
 
Incidentally, here are two threads on the topic:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=105166&highlight=publicani

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=27718&highlight=publicani

I hope it's helpful; I tried to get this topic discussed in the past, to no avail.

I might also recommend Nathan Rosenstein: Aristocrats and Agriculture in the Middle and Late Republic, from teh JOurnal of Roman Studies.

Rosenstein basically thinks prominent Romans were making most of their money from commercial activities by the late Republic. I don't know if he's right, and suspect he overstates his case. But it's an interesting argument. I can send you a .pdf if you want.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I have heard of the theory that short term loans wear very common among the elite of the late republic. We are after all talking about a society that has a land fetish. One need to own land worth at least IIRC 75.000 sectersis annually to get into the Senate.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now as most Senators get their funds off land, they need to borrow money if they need should arrive. Short of selling of land, this is the only way to get hold of cash outside the harvest season.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Crassus, whom we both had a look at got a lot of bad pr from his business ventures. A proper senator should not sully his dignitas with crass commercial enterprise. Now I done not doubt several senators had sleeping investments in commercial operations. The client system makes it very likely IMHO. But they did not confess too this in public. And this system would still be a personal based one wear the lender knew the person he was lending too.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]We doe not get the unpersonalized pooling of assets and investments that we see in later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And I doe not know if one could transfer ones investment. [/FONT]
 
Top