New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Ancient ‘machine-gun’ damage discovered on walls of Pompeii

Recently uncovered damage to walls in Pompeii displays patterns that may have been made by an ancient “machine gun” called a polybolos

A stone wall with a partially destroyed tower seen at an angle with two tall trees next to it

A view of Pompeii’s northern fortification wall looking toward a structure called Tower X.

“From Pompeii to Rhodes, from Survey to Sources: The Use of Polybolos,” by Adriana Rossi et al., in Heritage, Vol. 9, No. 3. Published online February 28, 2026 (CC by 4.0)

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 89 B.C.E., Pompeii was under siege. An invading army of tens of thousands of soldiers led by Lucius Cornelius Sulla, an influential commander and later dictator of Rome, stormed the town’s walls with slings and catapults. The siege, a success for Sulla, subdued the rebellious city back beneath the thumb of the Roman Republic.

Recently discovered damage on Pompeii’s fortification walls likely resulted from this fateful siege—and some of it may have come from a deeply mysterious ancient “machine gun,” researchers reported recently in Heritage.

Excavations and surveys conducted since 2024 have revealed several clusters of gouges in Pompeii’s northern fortification walls that were pristinely preserved by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in C.E. 79. The marks, which are sandwiched between towers once used to scout for armies and to allow archers and other artillery-throwers to fend off enemy incursions, are arrayed in a way that suggests they may have been left by a repeating dart-thrower called a polybolos.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“It was an antipersonnel weapon used to strike archers emerging from the battlements above and the postern below,” says study lead author Adriana Rossi, an engineer at the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Italy. The machine “had been described in detail but had never before been unearthed in any archaeological find or material evidence.”

One the left, a line drawing partially filled in with brown and gray color of a primitive repeating weapon. On the right, a three-dimensional rendering of the device with a long arm mounted on a pole

Renderings of what an ancient weapon called a polybolos might have looked like.

“From Pompeii to Rhodes, from Survey to Sources: The Use of Polybolos,” by Adriana Rossi et al., in Heritage, Vol. 9, No. 3. Published online February 28, 2026 (CC by 4.0)

Philo of Byzantium, an ancient Greek engineer, was the first to describe the machine in the third century B.C.E. in his work Belopoeica, in which he critiqued it as impractical. “It would be the kind of machine that was probably treated as either a novelty or proof of concept,” says historian Michael Taylor, a Roman Republic military expert at the University at Albany, who was not involved with the research.

Like other Roman catapults, the polybolos was equipped with a “torsion mechanism” likely made of fiber, hair or thin rope that enabled it to launch iron-tipped darts at a high velocity, Taylor says. “Basically, it looks like a giant crossbow.” But unlike your standard Roman catapult, it came equipped with “something akin to a bicycle chain” that enabled it to automatically reload. And according to Philo’s Belopoeica, it would leave a distinct “fanlike” pattern if shot at walls.

A close-up of light gray stone showing a series of four holes moving downward from the top center in an arc

A close-up of damage to one of the fortification walls of Pompeii shows a pattern that could indicate it was created by a repeating weapon.

“From Pompeii to Rhodes, from Survey to Sources: The Use of Polybolos,” by Adriana Rossi et al., in Heritage, Vol. 9, No. 3. Published online February 28, 2026 (CC by 4.0)

Using mathematical and three-dimensional modeling, the researchers scrutinized the damage on Pompeii’s walls and ultimately found that the angles and grooves didn’t match typical sling bullets or catapult shots. The arrangement of the marks seemed to match the fanlike spray of a repeating weapon.

Taylor finds one cluster particularly compelling: it resembles “what you’ll sometimes see with a machine-gun burst.” He suspects, though, that the damage could have been caused by a regular catapult firing and adjusting its aim rather than an automatic weapon. But, he says, the study’s hypothesis is “intriguing,” and “if anyone was going to come up with a bespoke repeating catapult, it would be Sulla. He seems to have a personal interest in very specialized catapults beyond the sort of standard stuff that would have been used by the Romans.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe