Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 38
Evan T. Sage, Ph.D., Ed.

43. There was a feud between Marcus Fulvius and the consul Marcus Aemilius, and, in addition to everything else, Aemilius considered that it was due to the efforts of Marcus Fulvius that he himself had reached the consulship two years late.¹ [2] Therefore, with a view to making Fulvius unpopular, he introduced to the senate ambassadors of the Ambraciots, previously coached as to their charges, who were to complain that, while they were at peace and had performed the orders of the previous consuls and were ready to render the [3??] same obedience to Marcus Fulvius, war had been declared on them, and first their fields had been laid waste and fear of plunder [p. 149]and slaughter held before the city, so that they were² compelled by that fear to close their gates; [4] that then they were beleaguered and besieged and that every form of war had been waged against them —slaughter, fires, destruction, plunder of the city; [5] that their wives and children had been carried off into slavery, their property taken from them, and, what disturbed them most of all, the temples throughout the city had been stripped of their ornaments; the images of the gods, or rather the gods themselves, had been torn from their seats and carried away; [6] bare walls and door-posts, they said, had been left to the Ambracians to adore, to pray to, and to supplicate: as they made these complaints the consul, asking leading questions as they had agreed, drew them on, as if against their will, to say even more. [7] When the Fathers were aroused, the other consul, Gaius Flaminius, took up the cause of Marcus Fulvius, saying that the Ambraciots were following an old and long-abandoned path; thus Marcus Marcellus had been accused by the Syracusans, thus Quintus Fulvius by the Campanians.³ [8] Nay, would they permit similar accusations to be brought against Titus Quinctius by King Philip, against Manius Acilius and Lucius Scipio by Antiochus, against Gnaeus Manlius by the Gauls and even against Marcus Fulvius by the Aetolians and the peoples of Cephallania? [9] “That Ambracia was besieged and captured and that its statues and works of art were removed from there and that other things were done which are usually done when cities are captured, do you think that either I on behalf of Marcus Fulvius or Marcus Fulvius on his own behalf will deny, [10??] conscript Fathers, since for these achievements he will [p. 151]claim from you a triumph, the captured Ambracia^{4 5} and the statues which they accuse him of removing and the other spoils of that city will be carried before his chariot and fixed to his [11] door-posts? There is no respect in which they can separate themselves from the Aetolians; the situation of Ambraciots and Aetolians is [12] identical. Let my colleague, then, either expend his malice in some other case or, if he prefers to do so in this matter especially, let him keep his Ambraciots here until the arrival of Marcus [13] Fulvius; I shall permit no decree to be passed concerning either the Ambraciots or the Aetolians in the absence of Marcus Fulvius.”