Salvete

The emperor Claudius wrote, "Once kings ruled this city, however, they did not pass it on to successors within their own families. Members of other families and even foreigners came to the throne, as Numa, coming from the Sabines, succeeded Romulus; he was a neighbor certainly, but at the same time he was a foreigner, as was Tarquinius Priscus who succeeded Ancus Marcius. Tarquinius, prevented from holding office in his own land because he was of impure blood, for he was the son of Demaratus of Corinth and his mother was from Tarquinii, a lady noble but poor, as she must have been if she needed to give her hand to such a husband, subsequently migrated to Rome and gained the throne."

There is no difference between Claudius and Livy on Tarquinius. There seems to be an assumption of a greater importance in the fact that Tarquinius came from a family that once lived in an Etruscan city before emigrating to Rome. Roman tradition, which Holloway follows, said that Tarquinius was elected as a king. The vulgar expression made by Sergius indicates that he assumes it implies something else. Does the fact that Rome elected Numa king mean that a Sabine army conquered Rome? Does the story of the arrival of Appius Claudius with a Sabine army mean something different than tradition says about the matter? Nothing in Claudius or Livy indicates or implies anything special about Rome having had foreign kings. It does not pose that foreign armies oppressed Rome. Romans did not hide the fact that one of their elected kings came from an Etruscan city. They did not hide the fact, rather shameful to them, that one king was the son of a slave. They did not hide the fact that Gauls had sacked Rome. So, Aule Sergi, can you explain to us the meaning of your phrasing, present an argument on why you think Rome hid an Etruscan conquest, and present any factual evidence that could support your assumption?