Was the Great Fire of London an Accident? A Shocking Re-evaluation

The year is 1666. The flames, ignited somewhere within the heart of London, consume everything in their path. For centuries, the Great Fire of London has been enshrined in history as an unfortunate accident, a tragic blaze fueled by a combination of tinder-dry buildings and a relentless wind. But what if this narrative, repeated for generations, is incomplete? What if the accepted explanation is, in fact, a dangerous simplification of a far more complex and possibly intentional event?

The prevailing story centers around a fire that began in the bakery of Thomas Farriner on Pudding Lane on September 2nd. While the initial spark’s origin remains debated – some posit a faulty oven, others a carelessly discarded ember – the narrative emphasizes the rapid spread due to the city’s closely packed, largely wooden structures and the strong east wind. This narrative, however, conveniently omits crucial details found within contemporary accounts, which we will examine here.

Let’s consider the accounts of Samuel Pepys, the renowned diarist. In his entries, he notes not just the ferocious speed of the fire’s advance, but also the curiously rapid demolition of buildings in the fire’s path. He writes of “houses being blown up” to create firebreaks, implying a level of strategic demolition far beyond the chaotic desperation one might expect during a purely accidental event. This points to a possible level of organized effort, perhaps even deliberate actions, to control, or potentially expand, the fire’s reach.

John Evelyn’s detailed account, too, raises questions. He, like Pepys, records the extreme intensity and speed of the fire, surpassing what could be reasonably explained by an accidental fire alone. He mentions “suspicions” being raised, although he stops short of outright accusation. The lack of definitive condemnation within these contemporary sources doesn’t negate the presence of suspicion; rather, it highlights the delicate political context of the era. Accusing powerful individuals of arson would have been extremely perilous.

The official inquiry following the fire, while attributing the cause to accident, failed to fully investigate alternative possibilities. The investigation’s swift conclusion, potentially influenced by the political climate, raises doubts about the thoroughness of its examination.

Furthermore, the fire’s path itself is curious. Why did it burn with such intensity in certain areas while seemingly sparing others? This uneven destruction pattern suggests a possible element of control or manipulation beyond mere random spread. Maps depicting the fire’s progression, meticulously recreated by historians using contemporary accounts, illustrate this uneven spread clearly. While the wind undoubtedly played a significant role, the selectivity of the destruction warrants closer scrutiny.

The sheer scale of the destruction – over 13,000 houses, 87 churches, and countless businesses reduced to ashes – is staggering. The economic and social consequences were equally profound. The immediate aftermath saw a surge in property prices, potentially benefiting certain individuals who may have held positions to gain financially from the rebuilding efforts. This possible financial incentive adds another layer of intrigue to the already complex puzzle of the fire’s origins.

The evidence, though circumstantial, presents a strong case for re-examining the long-held belief that the Great Fire of London was purely accidental. While definitive proof may be elusive, the combination of eyewitness accounts detailing the unusually rapid spread and demolition of buildings, coupled with the curious pattern of destruction and the potential for significant financial gain from the devastation, undeniably warrants a far more thorough and objective reassessment.

The future of this historical investigation depends on uncovering further primary source materials, conducting more detailed analysis of existing accounts, and employing modern forensic techniques where possible, even on a limited basis. The need for reassessment is undeniable. The myth of an entirely accidental Great Fire of London, convenient as it may seem, needs to be challenged.

The Great Fire of London remains a pivotal moment in British history. By acknowledging the limitations of the conventional narrative and exploring the less palatable possibilities, we can not only develop a more accurate understanding of this event but also offer valuable lessons for disaster preparedness and historical investigation in the present day.

The question remains: Was it an accident, or something more sinister?

“`