Few man-made disasters before the 19th century have caused as much damage or reformed a city as much as the Great Fire of London did in 1666. Not only did the fire cause untold damage, devastation, and carnage in the city, but it also helped to change the way that buildings were constructed in its aftermath. In fact, it was arguably the effect of the 1666 fire that transformed London from its medieval-style buildings to its early modern ones.London in 1666Panorama of London in 1647, by Wenceslaus Hollar, 1647. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTo understand how the fire spread so rapidly and destroyed so much of the medieval city, it is a good idea to take a look at what London would have looked like in the mid-17th century.Despite an increasing population, the city had not made many changes to its architectural style since the Middle Ages, even during the Tudor Era, and as such, London remained the archetype of a medieval city. Tightly compact, with small, winding, narrow lanes connecting roads to each other, with a few major roads that horse-drawn carriages could travel down.Thatched roofs were still very common, and most of the houses were primarily built from wood, meaning that the entire medieval city of London was essentially a huge fire risk.Nevertheless, there were still some precautions that took place when fires did erupt, as they did quite often in a city filled with bakeries, blacksmiths, shipyards, farriers, and more. The primary tactic was not dousing large fires with water, but rather quick firebreaks.This involved removing structures in the way of the fires path, so that it would eventually peter out until it was small enough to be doused with water and could thus burn out. However, when a fire broke out on Pudding Lane on Sunday, September 2, 1666, things looked slightly different.The Outbreak of the Great Fire of LondonSamuel Pepys, by John Hayls, 1666. Source: National Portrait GalleryShortly after midnight on Sunday, September 2, 1666, a fire at a bakery on Pudding Lane in London broke out and soon became unmanageable for the baker, Thomas Farriner. While no definitive cause of the fire has been established, it is presumed that a spark from one of Farriners ovens set a pile of nearby wood alight, and thus the whole place was soon engulfed in flames.The fire began to spread down Pudding Lane, and while the family managed to escape via an upstairs window, one of the housemaids was too frightened to jump, and she thus became the first victim of the Great Fire.The neighbors attempted to douse the fire, but it soon became clear that it was an impossible task. As such, the parishioners were called in, and they deemed that the houses should be demolished (a firebreaking technique), but the neighbors refused. As such, the Lord Mayor, a man called Sir Thomas Bloodworth, was called in to give his permission.It was Bloodworths indecisiveness that undoubtedly contributed to the spread of the fire. He agreed with the neighbors, and as the fire spread toward factories and other flammable sites near the river, he stated that, because most of the houses were rented and the owners could not be found, it would be impossible to demolish the houses without their permission.As such, the fire spread even further throughout Pudding Lane and nearby streets.Shortly after sunrise on the same morning, the famed diarist Samuel Pepys ascended the Tower of London to get a look at the flames. He recorded in his diary that it had transformed into a huge flaming conflagration, and his estimate was that around 300 houses had now been engulfed by the flame, and the fire had reached the riverfront.Pepys and the KingKing Charles II, by John Michael Wright, 1671-6. Source: The Royal Collection TrustPepys was summoned to King Charles II, and he urged the king that the houses needed to be pulled down immediately to stop this destructive fire from becoming even worse and causing more untold carnage.The King agreed and commanded Pepys to go to Bloodworth and insist that no houses be spared. James, Duke of York (Charles IIs brother), offered the assistance of the Royal Life Guards to help with the firefighting efforts.High winds throughout Sunday spread the flames even quicker, and people began to abandon any attempts to extinguish it, instead simply fleeing. Unfortunately, because of the citys narrow lanes, they quickly became overcrowded; carts and other items that were left behind blocked the lanes, stopping firefighters and, quite literally, adding more fuel to the fire.When Pepys arrived at the place where Bloodworth was coordinating efforts to extinguish the fire, the Mayor claimed that he was pulling houses down, and, exhausted, returned home to go to bed. By this point, Charles II had sailed down from Whitehall, and upon his arrival, he realized that Bloodworth had not pulled any houses down as he claimed. The King overrode the Mayors authority and had them pulled down.Monday, September 3, 1666Ludgate in flames (St Pauls in the background also catching fire), c. 1670. Source: Yale Center for British ArtThe fire continued to rage on, and spread west and north throughout Monday, reaching the financial heart of the city in Lombard Street, where many of the bankers rushed to grab as much gold as they could to prevent the fire from melting it.While the fire threatened the houses near London Bridge, it did not cross the bridge over to Southwark, which was the citys only remaining connection to the safe south of the river.It was during this time that people started to have suspicions that the fire was not started accidentally. England was in the full swing of the Anglo-Dutch War at this point, so foreign immigrants became a scapegoat and a target, with many of them (wrongly) being accused of starting the fire.Wealthy north Londoners wanted to remove as many of their belongings out of the city as possible, and it was now that some of the poor began to take advantage as porters, sometimes carrying items for them for a price, or driving carts, while some collected valuables and simply made off with them.The price of a cart had been a couple of shillings on the Saturday before the fire, by Monday it was 40equivalent to 133,000 today. Bloodworths name was not mentioned in any contemporaneous documents regarding Monday, and it is assumed that he had left the city by now. James, Duke of York (who would eventually go on to rule as King James II) was instead put in charge of the firefighting efforts.Tuesday, September 4, 1666The Great Fire of London, c. 1675. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTuesday was the biggest day of destruction. The Duke of York had hoped that the River Fleet would offer a form of natural firebreak, but by Tuesday morning, the flames had leapt over the river, and the fire began to spread further westward thanks to the easterly gale behind it.The fire, which had moved north, then began to move back eastward, and the garrison at the Tower of London took matters into their own hands, blowing up nearby buildings, which acted as a successful firebreak, preventing the flames from engulfing the Tower.The mighty St Pauls Cathedral, with its thick stone walls, was seen as a safe haven, and multiple people flocked inside, as well as storing important papers and documents in the cathedrals crypts. However, the architect Christopher Wren had put up some piecemeal wooden scaffolding around the edges of the cathedral, and naturally, the flames caught the scaffolding, which melted the lead roof, and the books and papers in the crypt, as well as the whole cathedral, were soon up in flames.Immediate Aftermath of the Great Fire of LondonJames II, by Peter Lely, c. 1650-75. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBecause of a change in the weather, most notably the wind dropping, the firebreaks began to take effect and stopped the spread of the fire by Wednesday, September 5.Samuel Pepys climbed to the top of Barking Church to take a look at the ruins of his city, writing in his diary that it was the saddest sight of desolation that I ever saw.While there were many separate fires still burning, the Great Fire had burnt itself out, but not without causing untold devastation to the city that would never be the same again.While Wednesday, September 5, 1666 is generally considered the day that the fire formally ended, it was reported that coal in cellars was still burning over two months later as a result of the fire.Remarkably, the official death toll for the fire stands at just six people. Naturally, this is hard to believe because this doesnt account for those who died of smoke inhalation, or even those who were unaccounted for, such as the homeless or refugees.Damage from the Great Fire of London. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe first response was to get enough food back into the city, and by Saturday, September 8, there was enough food for the markets to begin trading again. Charles II encouraged refugees who had escaped the fire to leave London, and insisted that all other cities in the country should take them in with no hesitation.The official cause of the fire in the London Gazette claimed that it was an accident, but many people were not happy with this account, instead looking for a scapegoat. A simple-minded French watchmaker, Robert Hubert, allegedly claimed that he was part of a gang that started the fire near Westminster. He then changed his story to say that he had started it in Pudding Lane.Despite the scepticism of some people who acknowledged that he probably was not in a fit mental state to plead, he was nevertheless hanged at Tyburn on October 29, 1666. Around two months after his death, it was clear that he was on a ship in the North Sea when the fire started, and did not arrive in London until Tuesday.Reaction and Rebuilding of LondonThe Great Plague of London, by Rita Greer, 2009. Source: Wikimedia CommonsFor some people, the years 1665-66 had been a nightmare. England (and especially London, which saw most of the action and heard the reports first) had been at war, a great plague had erupted in the city, and now the Great Fire had engulfed the city in a year with the digits 666 in it.Many people thought this was punishment from God for sins that had been committed: Catholics blamed Protestants, Protestants blamed Catholics, foreigners were blamed, animals were blamed, everything, it seems, bar the structure of the city.Charles II encouraged radical rebuilding schemes so that such devastation and destruction could never happen again.Despite the fact that a grid system was greatly favored (which would be used in the United States in the following centuries) and that Baroque architecture was also popular, Charles realized that it was going to be impossible to raise the funds for such a project. Furthermore, the thousands of refugees who had left the city meant that there was a huge shortage of laborers.Instead, the city was rebuilt in the New City area, and in much the same design. However, certain precautions were taken, such as making wider streets, with no houses obstructing access to the river, more wharves along the riverbanks, and the most important aspect of all: new houses were constructed out of brick and stone, not wood.In fact, the Rebuilding of London Act of 1666 forbade wood on the exterior of buildings and regulated the price of building materials and the wages of workers. As such, most of the building work was completed by 1671.The Great Fire of London: In ConclusionJohn Evelyns Plan for Rebuilding London, John Evelyn, c. 1666-76. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Great Fire of London was arguably the most catastrophic event that hit London in the Early Modern Period. However, without such a disaster, it is hard to believe that London would have evolved the way it did.How much longer would the city have remained a medieval city, cramming thousands into compact spaces, just waiting for a huge fire to tear through the city and claim the lives of hundreds, if not thousands?It was not just the redesign of the city that helped London to progress into the Early Modern Era and indeed beyond, but the improvements in hygiene (to an extent) that helped London develop.