It's probably both relatively true.
Looking at the size of the bubble compared to the general wealth and economic situation it must have been huge, especially since it was a new mass phenomenon. But then again, one must never forget that money is switching hands despite the price break-down and while one half loses everything, the other wins everything.
Economics is all about capital flow and trust and the repercussions of such a bursting bubble are the more severe, the less the winners of the burst trust the economy, because they hold their capital back from changing hands. If - and I guess this was the case in the Netherlands - the trust is high and the winners of the situation have confidence into the future, they simply reinvest the money they've just won in the bubble lottery. Then, the economic consequences are maybe visible, but limited.
My guess would be that the tulips have been traded between professionals who didn't take their gains and ran, but acted professionally and reinvested. I would say that if it had been a market driven by amateurs, it might have ended with more damage.
Ultimately, much like the current market cap of cryptocurrencies, the "market cap" of tulips was probably grossly overexaggerated by ignoring the effects of the order book vs. peak price:
https://steemit.com/taxes/@lexiconical/valuing-steem-rewards-as-taxable-income-is-a-vast-overstatement-of-tax-liability-part-2-the-thin-order-book-and-flash-crashes