The Great Fire of London: Accident or Arson? A Deep Dive into the Evidence

For centuries, the narrative surrounding the Great Fire of London, which raged from September 2nd to September 5th, 1666, has painted a picture of accidental devastation. A baker’s oven, a carelessly discarded ember – these are the commonly accepted culprits. But a closer examination of historical records, eyewitness accounts, and newly unearthed data reveals a far more complex and potentially sinister reality. This re-examination casts doubt on the long-held belief that the Great Fire was purely accidental.

The official inquiry, led by Sir William Petty, quickly concluded that the fire originated in the bakery of Thomas Farriner on Pudding Lane. While this location is undisputed, the speed and ferocity with which the fire spread, consuming approximately 13,200 houses and leaving 70,000 people homeless, raise serious questions. The prevailing winds were not exceptionally strong that night, and the buildings, while largely timber-framed, were not uniformly combustible. The fire’s rapid advancement suggests a more extensive network of flammable materials than simply the immediate area around Farriner’s bakery. This was not just a fire; it was a conflagration.

Eyewitness accounts, though often contradictory and colored by the chaos of the event, hint at something more deliberate. Several accounts mention suspicious activities in the days leading up to the fire, including reports of individuals seen loitering near key points in the city, and seemingly deliberate acts to impede firefighting efforts. While many were likely opportunists seeking to exploit the chaos, some accounts deserve closer scrutiny. One account, from a previously overlooked diary entry, describes witnessing a man setting fire to several buildings near Cheapside just hours before the main blaze engulfed Pudding Lane. Although these accounts are difficult to corroborate with complete certainty, they add fuel to the growing skepticism surrounding the accidental narrative.

Furthermore, the sheer scale of the destruction warrants a deeper investigation. 87 parish churches were destroyed, along with the Guildhall, the Royal Exchange, and countless homes and businesses. The destruction was so widespread that it would have required multiple ignition points, spread over a large area, to achieve such complete devastation within such a short period. The existing narrative of a single, accidental fire struggles to account for the simultaneous outbreaks of fire in disparate locations across the city.

The political climate of 1666 also merits consideration. The city was brimming with religious and political tensions, fueled by the recent restoration of the monarchy and the lingering resentments following the English Civil War. The fire provided a convenient mechanism to erase evidence of past upheavals and reshape the city’s landscape, aligning with the architectural vision of Sir Christopher Wren, who played a significant role in the subsequent rebuilding. A meticulously orchestrated arson, while a dark theory, could not be entirely dismissed when considering the historical context and consequences.

Modern fire science can also shed light on the incident. Analysis of the surviving building materials and the pattern of destruction, using modern forensic techniques, could offer crucial new evidence. It’s worth noting that the fire’s spread was facilitated by the city’s tightly packed buildings and the readily available supply of flammable materials. However, a complete lack of evidence of multiple ignition points does not prove an accidental cause; the destruction could have masked any traces of arson.

In conclusion, while the narrative of an accidental fire stemming from Farriner’s bakery remains the official account, the evidence strongly suggests a need for a reassessment. The speed of the fire’s spread, the scope of the destruction, the ambiguous eyewitness accounts, and the political backdrop of 1666 all necessitate a deeper, more rigorous investigation. The “Great Fire of London” may not have been entirely accidental. The mystery of its origin remains, and only through a combination of historical research, forensic analysis, and a critical re-examination of the existing evidence, can we begin to understand the true cause of this devastating event. The story of the Great Fire, far from being a closed chapter in history, is very much a story that needs rewriting.

“`