A Brief History
On September 2, 1666, one of history’s most memorable fires occurred in the English capital of London. The medieval portion of central London located within the old Roman wall was completely devastated and every building therein basically gutted.
Digging Deeper
Despite the terrific damage, the death toll has never been known and only 6 fatalities have been documented. Researchers seem to think many more people must have died but were not counted as they came from parts of town that were either poor or middle class; the shops and homes of the upper classes being spared. Also, possible victims may have been incinerated in the flames, making it hard to locate and identify them.
13,200 homes were burned as were most of the city government buildings. Even churches were not spared, with a total 87 of them being destroyed. About 70,000 of the city’s 80,000 inhabitants were made homeless, as well.
The origin of the fire seems to be a bakery on Pudding Street, with flames erupting shortly after midnight. The late hour and hesitation on the part of the mayor (Sir Thomas Bloodworth) to order firebreaks to be made allowed the blaze to quickly get out of control (Firebreaks are gaps made to prevent the further spread of fire; in other words, they are the removal of combustible materials.).
As it was, the fire spread, taking St. Paul’s Cathedral with it. The narrow streets and buildings that were so close to each other frustrated all efforts to contain the blaze, as did the fact that the water wheels that lifted water to a water tower themselves caught fire. The fire was finally contained after almost 4 days by firebreaks hastily made with the use of gunpowder to blow up buildings. The gunpowder had come from the Tower of London where several hundred tons of the stuff were stored. Furthermore, the strong winds that had facilitated the spread of the fire had finally also calmed down.
At the time of the fire, London’s population was close to 500,000, many of whom were French or Dutch immigrants. Suspecting that foreign agents may have set the fire, poor people who had become homeless angrily attacked many immigrants and lynched them on the spot.
After the fire, with much of the central city flattened, the opportunity existed to finally redesign the city, but despite various proposals, the old layout was pretty much copied.
The city was devastated economically by the disaster, and the lives of those made homeless were disrupted to say the least.
Unfortunately, most big cities have had at least one great fire in their history, although today we can (hopefully) contain them before large parts of the city are destroyed.
We offer our sincere wishes that your city never experiences any widespread fires.
Question for students (and subscribers): Have you ever experienced a major fire? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
For another interesting event that happened on September 2, please see the History and Headlines article: “10 Phamous Phrases Phamous People are Known Phor.”
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Hanson, Neil. The Great Fire of London: In That Apocalyptic Year, 1666. Wiley, 2002.
Robson, Pam. All About the Great Fire of London. Hodder & Stoughton, 2002.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="4483 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=4483">99 Comments
It’s crazy to think it took four days to get the fire under control. And that they pretty much copied the design of the city even though they had a chance to improve.
-AD
The amount of people that were made homeless because of the fire was ridiculous. A lot of people’s lives must have been ruined.
I can’t believe that they’d exert themselves to rebuild an entire city when they barely wanted to put out the fire in the first place.
I can’t believe how long it took to get the fire under control. It’s crazy how only six deaths have been recorded!
I am surprised by the poor planning of the containment of the fire.
It is crazy to think that fires like these can be put out in seconds in today’s society. I wonder if they purposely tried to hide how many people died and only recorded the 6 fatalities. Also, I bet more people died after the fires because they were homeless and may have died after that.
it is crazy to think how fast the fire spread and how minimal life was lost
In today’s society, a fire would never spread that fast in a instant, but because back then technology wasn’t that big, that fire could not be controlled.
Fires are an awful thing, whether they are accidental or forced by human actions. They are so destructive and don’t care if you’re rich, poor, young, old, and so on; they destroy anything in their paths. It just seems weird to me how few deaths were recorded. I understand that a lot of bodies could have been burned in the fire, but it still seems like more people should have been accounted for.
A fire that leaves 70,000 people homeless only kills 6 people? I’m not buying it. I’m thinking many bodies were just completely fried in the fire and never found/identified.
That is wild that 7 out of every 8 people were left homeless. It is also very interesting that there were so few casualties documented
The only thing that typically catches fire in Cleveland is a river.
I doubt there were really only 6 casualties.
As an Art History major it always kills me to hear about fires (past and present) that threaten or destroy architecture crucial to a certain time period. Of course I have to accept it because it was a problem of the time that such devastation could happen to these large cities, but it makes me wonder what the city would have looked like had the fire not happened! Maybe not that different, but medieval architecture would have hopefully still survived. I guess we will never know!
Only 6 deaths recorded due to social status. This is very interesting- also the fact that 7 of 8 people were left homeless shows how horrific this fire and fires of cities at the time were.
They could have improved the city and made it more spaced out or placed in a more fire-preventative manner, but no- gotta go with the old design!
I think it’s a pretty weird coincidence that the fire took place in the year 1666. Which happens to contain the “satan’s number”. I also think it’s weird that so few people we killed..although that truth is still undetermined.
If there was a fire as big as this that left only 6 people dead…then that’s a miracle. But that is hard to believe.
hard to believe on 6 people died with all of that devastation
1666 was a pretty hot year
I think more than 6 people definitely died. And to be the largest fire in history is ironic it happen 1666.
Coincidence… 1666… or was it, just the way life goes? Bad things happen every day! — DAVID WARDLE
For being the largest fire in history its hard for me to believe that only six people died. With out modern technology to fight the fire I don’t see how thats possible.
Would not want to live in London in 1666.
There had to have been more than 6 fatalities that day especially for it being as bad as it was!
I think I would of took the opportunity to rebuild the city with a new design
Only 6 deaths recorded, wow, I’m sure there were far more than that.
I can’t believe that they just lynched whatever immigrants they could find without any evidence that it was caused by foreigners.
There is no way that only 6 people died from all of that destruction.
Although it was a terrible disaster, it did rid the city of an immense amount of filth and waste (substance)
Throughout history, those who were considered the lower class were not counted. Just as in early American history, they may have only counted the white men who were property owners who were killed. This may account for why only 6 people were documented as being killed when there was so much destruction of property.
with 70,000 people becoming homeless there is no way only 6 died
1666…. 666…great fire
*gasp*
Repent, the end is nigh!
But really, that’s an odd coincidence.
I wonder did the mayor ever face any kind of retribution for being so negligent?
It is sad to think that immigrants were blamed for these fires even though earlier in the article it states that it started at a bakery. Obviously there were poor record keeping to think that all those buildings were destroyed and only 6 fatalities.
I always wondered why did the fire start in a bakery and what happened to the baker. If he was still alive during the fire did he flee the country or just hid.
That’s one heck of a fire. Guess the mayor should of set up the firebreaks. It could of at least slowed it down.
I highly doubt if the fire was that big then the death rate had to be more than six people. the fire had started from a collective amount of gun powder.
Funny how they want to blame the immigrants…… It was an accident but that never seems to matter.
Blaming innocents for the fire really?
It’s sad that so many people had to endure losing their homes but for so many to blame it on the immigrants like that is a bit much. It supposedly started in a bakery, that doesn’t make it every immigrants fault.
It makes me appreciate the much more effective emergency services that we have today. Very sad time in history.
It’s a shame that people still needed someone to blame for this even though it seemed to be an accident.
I believe there were more than 6 casualties, most of the bodies were probably lost
Blaming the immigrants for something like this. It’s not like it was anyones fault. This is sad
It is interesting to note that most big cities have had at least one big fire in their history.
I’m not sure the immigrants should be blamed for the fire. An emergency contact system would have been nice back then.
Why does there always seem to be a scapegoat for tragedies that aren’t others fault?
I feel like there is always somebody to blame when something goes wrong. in this case why immigrants? disgusting to see this was their reason
People cant seem to take fault for themseleves and there actions
With that kind of fire there defnitely had to have been more than 6 casualties.
Crazy to think it took 4 days to contain/put out a fire that started in a small bakery.
13,200 homes, 87 churches, and most government buildings were burned, yet only 6 fatalities were documented? Researchers obviously believe more were killed, but it seems like such a low number for the amount of buildings burned and 4 days worth of putting out the fire. I am surprised that more fatalities were not documented during this tragedy.
I am surprised that it took four days to finally put out the fire and only 6 people are known to have died during it. I am glad that our emergency response system has improved since then so we have better control over fires and they do result like this one did.
It is ironic to be reading about how the English were on edge about immigrants after the fire. Just as many are on edge about immigration now especially with Brexit.
If the great fire made 70,000 people homeless, I have to believe it took more than 6 lives. It’s interesting that they didn’t take the disaster and update the cities layout.
I think was intrigued me when reading this was that much of the medieval and historical portion of the city was destroyed in the fire. It makes you wonder how much history was lost in an event such as this. When you think similar events such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria, it makes you realize the importance of preserving our history for those that come after us.
Even during a devastating event such as a fire there was tension over immigrants. I suspect this is because people needed someone to blame for the fire and it is always those that have no power to protect themselves with.
I find it interesting that most of the population in London at the time were Dutch and French immigrants. Yet, after the fire these people were lynching other immigrants right on the spot. This rationale is flawed because these immigrants are the same as you. Immigrants were moving to London to start a new life, but were instead being lynched on the spot for a fire that had nothing to do with them.
The fire was thought to be set by a local bakery in the city that caught most or if not all the city on fire. I find it hard to believe that only 6 deaths were reported with the whole city in ashes. In my mind way more than 6 died in this tragic event. The city also should of been updated once the fire happened instead they just rebuilt it the same way.
This is so horrible! I can’t imagine a fire of such a degree that it would leave almost all of the city’s inhabitants homeless. The only fire I can think of in Cleveland’s history to relate to this is the Cuyahoga river fire which I believe took place in 1969. The Cuyahoga river fire was due to decades of built up pollution since it took place in a time when toxic chemicals were regularly dumped in the river. It seems we’ve come a long way in fire prevention when prevention is possible.
It seems extremely unrealistic to me that there were only 6 fatalities in a fire as big as this one, which destroyed almost the entire city and left almost all inhabitants homeless. What a horrible moment for London’s history! I wonder what the city of London, which everyone loves, would look life if the old layouts were not copied, but rather new ones were created.
The thing that caught my attention about this event was the fact that the English government didn’t seize the opportunity to redesign the city, a chance that few large settlements ever get. I have family in Chicago, and I once asked them how the city was designed in such a perfect grid pattern. Apparently, after the Chicago fire, the city planners essentially started from square one, and made a totally new city, something that perhaps London could have also benefitted from.
The idea that a fire could destroy an entire city is a difficult concept for me to comprehend. How bad can a fire be that there is absolutely no way to contain it? I also do not really understand the idea of firebreaks. Why could a fire not be contained after removing combustible materials?
In today’s world, something like this would have been controlled quicker than it was back then. It is amazing to think that a fire that started in a bakery could destroy a city and make 70,000 of the 80,000 people homeless. That night had to have been very windy for the fire to spread so fast and do that damage it did.
Words probably can’t describe the horror as the fire was spreading across the city. If 13,200 houses were burned down, I am sure more than six people lost their lives from this completely avoidable incident. Just another example how the mayor’s lack of leadership and intelligence could have prevented this, and how cities and people need competent leaders to keep them safe.
I wonder what was the reason for the mayor hesitating to take action to contain the fire. Either way, four days of fire tearing through a city is a long time and I can imagine the damage from this was devastating. They had a chance after the fire was doused to redesign the city completely, but chose to keep it the original layout. That must mean the original designers did a good job with the city layout.
What amazes me the most is the fact that there were 70,000 people homeless and only 6 died. I find that so hard to believe.
Wow this makes the cuyahoga river catching on fire seem little in comparison. This huge fire happened from just a small bakery somewhere in the city. It’s amazing how fast it seems to have spread and that the fire went on for 4 days. The question it left me wondering was how did the fire start in the first place, especially that late at night?
The damage caused by this fire must have been unreal. I find it extremely hard to believe that only 6 people died from a fire as large and destructive as this one. It amazes me that the mayor hesitated to take action to contain this fire. If he would have acted quicker, a lot of destruction and terror could have been avoided.
Wow, it is crazy that a fire that came about from a small bakery created such destruction. It took four days to put it out. I can not believe only six fatalities had been documented. That seems inaccurate to me. I hope to never encounter a fire like this one in my lifetime.
There was defiantly more casualties than documented. 70,000 homeless to 6 dead just makes zero sense.
It would have been a wise decision for the bakery to relocate in another city for reasons other than being burnt down. At the very least they could have held a free donut day after reopening.
This is really an unfortunate disaster that occurred. The mayor could have prevent further damage by taking action more quickly, but since that is not the case, the city could start *fresh* and rebuild.
Out of all the damage this fire made, only 6 fatalities were every documented. That is quite remarkable. Goes to show, you always have to watch what you’re doing in the kitchen and to never leave it unattended.
Six deaths? London got lucky! Most of the city was completely destroyed and there were only 6 causalities, that is truly amazing.
This smells like arson. Did the bakery owner make an insurance claim after the fire? It just seems so hard to believe that such a small fire could spread so quickly and do so much damage. Even the water wheels caught fire, wow!
Flames erupted shortly after midnight from a bakery? Munchies anyone? Taco bell must have been closed…
I’m honestly surprised even how significant the damage was there truly wasn’t even more destruction. Only 6 deaths documented there were obviously more not documented but there could have been so many more.
The firebreaks last 4 days, and the damage was immense. How did only 6 people die? Also, the poor people that went homeless because of this tragedy, should have had buildings built for them. They had no homes following this, and the government should have done more to fix the lives that were ruined. It wasn’t their fault there was a fire.
So many buildings and people crammed together. Where is Smokey the bear when you need him!
Fires are terrifying. If there was a plus side to any horrible tragedy, they get to build new homes and buildings
This is crazy to think about 7 out out of every 8 people were homeless after this fire. It is a good thing our fire departments are much more advanced now so these types of things do not happen anymore.
This is just crazy , a fire that huge burning up a city like that its crazy, just imagine how many people died or could of died how many people have no home no saving or even anything worth to move. Kind of like the hurricane that damage a whole city.
It is hard to believe that only six deaths were documented from a fire that occurred in a city of nearly 500,00 and where over 13,000 homes were demolished. The fact that the poor weren’t exactly counted for simply due to their social economic status is devastating. No ones social economic status should represent their importance to the world.
It’s heartbreaking to think about all of those people who most likely died and became homeless.
how interesting that there were only 6 deaths but so many homeless. As sad has it many be the city would be able to start over with a fresh new start
Crazy that such a tragedy could have occurred!
Its sad to think that more people could’ve died but were not counted because they were in different classes.
It’s sad to think that so many people probably died in that fire and not be counted because they were either middle or poor class. I couldn’t imagine my city going through that.
I remember reading once that people also blamed the devil for this fire because it was the year 1666.
It’s a shame that there wasn’t more people documented dead in that fire.
not to make light of a sad situation, but it was a bakery on pudding street. It is really sad that these events take place. I wonder if the baker was fired, and if so was it because they started this horrific event or because they couldn’t bake.
It is sad that so many deaths were not accounted for.
It’s hard to believe that the people of London rebuilt the areas that were burned in the same was as before the fire happened. Wouldn’t someone think to change it up so that fires don’t destroy the city again?
The fact that 70,000 out of the 80,000 citizens homes were burned down most likely means that the death toll is over 6 people.
Its terrible to know that these people didn’t get documented in the fire.
The death toll of 6 people doesn’t make any sense to me, considering 70,00 out of 80,000 homes were destroyed. I wonder if the baker survived and was punished for causing the destruction of London.
70,000 people were left homeless after this great fire and only 6 were left dead though! That number really surprised me because I thought it would have been a much high death rate..