22/04/2026
The idea sounds neat, but it’s a bit oversimplified—the The Great Fire of London didn’t directly “end” the Bubonic Plague, though it may have helped reduce the conditions that allowed it to spread.
Here’s a richer version of that fact:
In 1665, London was devastated by the Bubonic Plague, which killed tens of thousands of people in overcrowded, unsanitary neighborhoods filled with rats and fleas—the main carriers of the disease. Just a year later, in 1666, the Great Fire of London broke out and burned for several days, destroying over 13,000 homes, churches, and buildings, especially in the poorest and most densely packed areas of the city.
Because the fire wiped out many of these filthy, rat-infested neighborhoods, it likely reduced the environments where plague-carrying fleas thrived. However, historians believe the plague was already declining before the fire began, so the fire didn’t single-handedly stop the outbreak. Instead, it acted more like a “reset,” helping London rebuild with wider streets, better sanitation, and improved building materials like brick instead of wood.
So while the fire didn’t magically cure the plague, it played a role in changing the city in ways that made future outbreaks less likely—and reshaped London into a cleaner, more modern city.
