This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdC~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 2 September 2006 (→Buckets and Engines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:05, 2 September 2006 by EdC~enwiki (talk | contribs) (→Buckets and Engines)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | London Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
An event mentioned in this article is a September 5 selected anniversary.
Buckets and Engines
The last line of the Events section has been altered to read: "Buckets were of no use, from the confined state of the streets." I'm not sure if this is subtle vandalism, or someone who thinks fire engines would be an anachronism in 1666 London. Anybody have any comments? Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Do the fires of 798, 982, and 1666 have names? Anyone know? --Koyaanis Qatsi
1666 is just known as The Great Fire of London, the others...? Why are Pudding Lane and Monument in quotes? -- User:Robert Brook
I imagine each was called "The Great Fire" - until the next one. It's much like the Great Plague - a puny affair compared to those of the 14th century, but it's still the most recent, and therefore "Great". User:David Parker
I seem to remember that fish porters from Billingsgate used to race up and down the Monument with crates of fish on their heads, but I haven't been able to track down the circumstances of this. Mintguy 14:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I edited Charles II of England for James II who is the proper Stuart King at the time. Sparky 07:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- And yet the king for whom the baking was being done was Charles II. Go figure. -- Someone else 07:21, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No I erred. Sorry
I removed some really excessive, unnecessary linking. One sentence ended, I'm not making this up, "managed to escape the burning building, along with his family, by climbing out through an upstairs window." Every vocabulary word in a sentence shouldn't be linked in this manner. Tempshill 05:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"but incredibly only 9–16 people are known to have died."
I've read accounts that 6 deaths were "recorded." Recorded by the government? Given that the fire originated in the King's Baker's house, there could be an effect of information control. Does anyone know the origin and context of the "recorded data"? 1-2 hundred thousand were left homeless. Most of those people had to have left or died. It was not helped at all in the context of the 17th century, including Cromwell (who's head watched london burn from pole outside Westminster), and Three Dutch Wars that left England bankrupt and defeated. (viz. )
I have never edited a page before so I'm not going to change the text. I prefer discussion. ~Rotsujin
'In 1666 London burned like rotten sticks.' - what the hell? perhaps this quote(?) needs some explanation...? - Mar 19 2005
- Part of a children's rhyme for remembering dates of events in UK history. EdC 13:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
on the subject of recorded death
The reporting of deaths in London at the time was one of the jobs of the Parish Clerks, who published official statistics (of debatable but fairly good accuracy) every week in Bills of Mortality.
Now, this dispute over recorded deaths in the Great Fire of London is essentially semantic. Because London burned, and everyone in it ran away, the parish clerks of the City could not go around and check who was alive and who dead in the parishes because they would have been fried, not that there would be anyone around to count of course, because everyone had to flee. Furthermore, had the parish clerks been magically flame-resistant, they would not have been able to publish the data they collected, because Parish Clerks Hall burned down on the evening of Sunday 3rd September. Moreover, the heat of the fire was sufficiently intense that cremation of bodies was entirely possible, so they might not have found anyone anyway.
The Bills of Mortality were not printed for three weeks, until late September 1666 and when they were, no mention was made of the fire, only of 10 people who met their death through various accidents unaccounted for under the usual headings of TB, cancer, plagues, old age, etc. The fact that this figure probably bears no relation to the real number of people who perished in the fire does not detract from the fact that, inasmuch as there was any official figure at all, this was it.
Hope that helps to clear it up.
And whoever wrote that James II was the king at the time really needs to do more reading and less writing.
A modern city?
The article states that "...today's London is a modern city..." How can a city with so many 100+ year old homes and buildings, that still relies on mass transit, be considered modern? All of the top attractions in London (Big Ben, Westminster Abbey...) seem to be very old. London's tallest building is merely 50 stories tall; not very modern. Should this statement be removed? Rmisiak 04:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't get what you mean by "Still relies on Mass transit", surely the hallmark of a modern city is an advanced public transport infrastructure? Westminster Abbey is very old, that is true, but Big Ben isn't, nor is Tower Bridge, nor are the Kensington Musea. In fact, out of the top attractions, only the Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, and The Tower have any real age, you could say Buckingham Palace is reasonably old too. All European cities have old buildings, such as churches and castles that attract visitors, are you saying that by that measure there are no modern european cities? Also, a city's modernity has little to do with what foreign tourists come to see, you could say theat LA is not a modern city, because tourists go there for the Beaches, which are older than any of the London Attractions.PRB 08:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Cause of fire
I read in a history book that the fire was started because a boy tried to steal some bread and the baker turned around with a shovel of coal for fuel. The coals were burning as the baker was putting them in and he turned around too quickly and scattered the coals and started the fire. This just a theory however. Should we include that in the article?
- If you've got a quotable source, maybe. Without, it feels like speculation. Roddyp 22:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)sls
Pepys a neighbour?
The article makes it sound like Pepys lived virtually next door to the baker. He actually lived in Seething Lane which must be a good 500 yards away and, in a city that was only a square mile in size, I wouldn't describe them as neighbours. Also, Pepys's house survived the fire intact! Bluewave 13:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Having written this, I thought I'd check my copy of Pepys: I find that he was not "awakened by the fire at 1AM" at all! He says "Some of our maids sitting up late last night....Jane called us up, about 3 in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City." Bluewave 16:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Copyright violation?
It appears that this entire article has been plagiarised from this source:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11401/11401.txt
which is a copy of an article in a journal written in 1827. Most of this article is paraphrased, but a lot of it is still word-for-word copy. We need to find out if this is a violation of copyright, and if it is, then we need to rewrite this article.
- First, let me agree, if the article includes word for word copies of material, it should be cited.
- But the Project Gutenberg's goal is to make available important works whose copyright has expired. Copying that kind of material is not a copyright violation, merely bad scholarship. -- Geo Swan 19:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Destruction section
I have been trying to improve this section. There was a bit that attributed long term benefits to the fire, including "Most of London's public structures, the regularity and beauty of the streets, and the great salubrity and extreme cleanliness of a large part of the city of London are due to this." At first sight this looks complete nonsense: a lot of the public structures are much later; the streets aren't regular (they are still based on the pre-fire pattern); "salubrity and cleanliness" are debatable (I vote against) but in any case don't seem to owe much to the fire. Hence, I've left this bit out! Bluewave 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Map
How about a map of which areas were burnt by the fire, preferably on a map of London as it was at the time, but it could also be interesting to see the same area on a modern map to get an idea of the scale of the area involved. 83.201.152.180
The chapel was St Pauls Church, NOT cathedral
I am changing the beginning of the article to read St. Paul's Church as opposed to St. Paul's Cathedral. At the time of the Great Fire (my history teacher informs me) St. Paul's was not a cathedral.
Jrothwell 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything to support this (other than your history teacher, presumably). St Paul's website (http://www.stpauls.co.uk) says "A Cathedral dedicated to St Paul has overlooked the City of London since 604AD, a constant reminder to this great commercial centre of the importance of the spiritual side of life...The current Cathedral – the fourth to occupy this site..."
I am changing it back until you come up with a better source than an unnamed history teacher. Bluewave 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Later in the article, it actually states that St. Paul's Cathedral was then St. Paul's Church. I don't know if this is verifiable, so I'll not change it until I find a concrete source. Thanks for your help. --Jrothwell 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
See Cathedral. A cathedral is literally 'the seat of a bishop'. St Paul's was the seat of the Bishop of London and headquarters of the Diocese of London since the 7th century AD Colin4C 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Have removed the implication that it was not a cathedral Bluewave 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
For Discussion
The following edit moved here from Great Plague of London for comment and discussion. Sources and accuracy of the statement?WBardwin 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Plague cases died out with the arrival of winter, 1665. Although it is widely thought that the Fire of Lodon 1666 effectively stopped the plague outbreak, probably due to the destruction of London rats and their plague-carrying fleas, this seems unlikely since the fire was confined mainly to the wealthy business and residential districts and left the rat-infested slums untouched.
It might also be worth noting that the Black Death page discusses multiple research sources which collectively suggest that rats and fleas may not have been the disease vector for the plague at all. Nasajin 01:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)