Notes

7H History - Mr Stratford (2022-23)
7H - Online Lesson #1: The Great Fire of London, 1666
Michael Stratford
•
07:02
100 points
Good morning everyone,

Usually during online learning, I produce a pulse-pounding Loom video where I talk you through each stage of the lesson - much like we would in a usual classroom lesson. However, you'll be devastated to know that my work laptop refuses to let me record audio to accompany today's work. So, our lesson today is going to be just a tad quieter than usual...

NOTE: If you wish, you can print out the worksheet on the last slide of today's PowerPoint and write on that if you would like.

Building on yesterday's work on the Great Fire of London, here are your tasks for today:

TITLE: What made the Great Fire of London of 1666 so significant?

In the hot summer of 1666, the city of London burned. A fire so terrible - destroying 13,000 houses - had not been seen since Roman times. But why was London capable of burning so severely?

TASK 1: Look at Source 1 on Slide 1. In your exercise book, explain as many examples as you can for why London was so vulnerable to a fire in 1666. Are there any other reasons that aren't included in the source that you know are true that could also be mentioned?


TASK 2: On Slide 3, there is an incomplete storyboard showcasing the Great Fire of London. In your exercise books, complete the storyboard about the Great Fire of London by doing the following:
First, recreate the storyboard on Slide 3.
Then, fill in the missing sections below in the caption boxes using the three boxes of information on Slide 3.
Lastly, add pictures to represent each part of the story.
TASK 3: On Slide 4, there are a range of consequences of (or 'things that happened after') the Great Fire of London.
Identify the short-term consequences and long-term consequences in your exercise book.

A short-term consequence is something that mainly impacted people immediately after the event.
A long-term cause is something that had an impact for a long time after the event.

TASK 4: In the Google Classroom comments section (the section below this lesson assignment where you can write comments), answer the following question:
What are the four main consequences of the Great Fire of London?

In your response, you must:

a) Include two short-term consequences and two long-term consequences
b) Write your consequences in order of importance (the first consequence is most important, the fourth is least important)
c) You must explain your choice after each one.

Stretch & Challenge:

Make sure you reference what other people have written! For example, "I largely agree with Mr Stratford that _________ is one of the most important consequences because ____________. However, it is not as important as _________ because _______________."
Well, this isn't how I thought our penultimate (second-to-last) lesson would go, and I'm devastated knowing we only have next Monday's lesson left for the entire year... but still, we'll end on a high note!

Any questions, let me know. Otherwise, enjoy the weekend and I'll see you in a week!

Best wishes,

Mr Stratford

Y7 - The Great Fire of London (MJS 2022-23).pptx
PowerPoint
Your work
Assigned
Private comments
7H - Online Lesson #1: The Great Fire of London, 1666
Class comments

Rhia Pillai10:05
I think the most important short term consequence of the Great Fire of London is that 70 to 80 thousand people were left
homeless.
The reason why I chose this was because the cause of the fire left many people homeless and hungry and having to pay for those expenses will cost a lot and may even make people go bankrupt because of this. Along with having to pay for the new homes, they will have to buy a lot more food, which is a problem because food prices have gone up, and not everyone will get the food and shelter they need.

I think the most important long term consequence was that the Great Fire of London helped fight of the plague.

The plague was a horrible disease going around back then for years and years and wiping out hundreds of thousands of people. The disease might have gotten worse, if it wasn't for the Great Fire of London. Yes, it was a big tragedy that also wiped out thousands of people, but at least after the fire, the people didn't have to worry about the plague as much as before.

I think the second most important long term cause was when Charles the second ordered a proper brigade .

Before and during the fire, the only people that were actually doing something to extinguish the fire were untrained and unpaid, and it didn't have any impact on the fire for a very long time. Charles made sure that the next a fire happens, he will have trained staff and the fire would go out more quickly and there won't be as many lives lost as last time.

I think the second most important short term cause was that food prices went up.

As I said in my first point, lots of people lost their home due to the fire and they need food and shelter. Since the fire happened, there were less and less food that they had to go up so that it wouldn't all run out. This was especially hard for the poor people because they barely have any money and the food prices are way higher than before so they couldn't eat anything.

Thank you,
Rhia

Rayna Kabir10:27
The great fire of London

Due to the huge fire, London's food prices being more expensive than before is just one of the short-term causes which occurred. Food being scarce after the great fire meant that prices had to go up for the producers of the food to be able to buy seeds for more food to produce in the future - this lead to the hundreds of people which were poor or homeless to struggle to get some money in order to feed their children.
Linking to this, people being left homeless was also a main short-term cause which happened after the fire. Due to the flames which spread to one house to another, (by the wind and the timber they were made out of) many houses were set aflame and got damaged completely which led to no room for the hundreds of thousands of people to be homeless and forced to live on the streets.

The designers re-building the homes and houses to be more evenly spaced out was one of the main long-term causes which made a huge change to London at the time. All of the houses were covered with a highly flammable substance called pitch which strongly lead to the fire spreading . Designers soon recognised all the safety hazards and flaws in the houses and how they were laid out and changed them, e.g.: they roofs before were placed slanted and outwards which made sure no natural sunlight came and were very close to each other. Designers soon fixed the layout of London and made sure each parish cam with a leather bucket, at least 2 water squirts and many more fire equipment. Before the fire, people wasn't equipped with these types of materials which could've helped to defeat the fire a little bit - so after the fire, they didn't want to risk anything happening in the future.
Another long-term cause was that the King Charles created and set up more men to train as fire-fighters and made sure that anything like the Great Fire of London would never happens again. The fire had made thousands of people homeless which forced the Kind to make changes before something similar to the great fire would never happen again.

Rayna K

Ogoluwayo Oshinboni11:41
I partly disagree with Rhia because I think that the fire fighting off the plague is a short term impact, and also that it's the most important. The plague killed hundreds of thousands of people - at least - so I think that without the Great Fire of London, the plague of 1665 would have been harder to get rid of. Despite the Great Fire of London being one of the most catastrophic events in English history, it made England a better place by getting rid (temporarily) of the plague.

The 2nd most important short term cause would be 1/4 of the population becoming homeless. This took a large toll on the country that lasted through to the Victorian era, where the majority of Londoners were living in slums. When London was rebuilt, it was done in a way that there would be more space. This meant that there weren't as many homes as there were before the fire.


The most important long term impact, in my opinion, would be the weekly rubbish collections, which still take place today. The fire spreading so easily made England more aware of their unhealthy state of living. They began to collect rubbish each week, which helped to move England further away from its medieval habits, and into a more modern and sanitary environment to live in.

The 2nd most important long term impact was the full time London fire brigade. Prior to the Great Fire of London, there were only untrained, unpaid and part time workers. By establishing a full time brigade, there would always be someone trained to assist in the case of a fire. This is the same as now, where there are teams of people to put out a fire when needed.

Ogo

Shagun Agarwal11:42
I think the most important long-term consequence after the Great fire of London was that Charles II made a full time fire bridge. This meant that they were always prepared for another fire brake out if it were to happen. Having trained people protecting the city from fire meant not many homes would be burnt and more people would be safe. Getting paid for it would draw more people in to do the job so more people would protect the city. It also means that if it did happen again less people would be left homeless and hungry. Taxes wouldn't rise either. That's why it is the most important cause.

The next most important is a short term cause. I think that one fourth of the population becoming homeless is important. It meant that a lot of people wouldn't be able to carry out their job. Taxes would have to increase and new ones would have to be made. I had a major impact as o lot of people were homeless. To add to that, my previous statement said that people would have lost jobs which means not a lot of people would be able to pay tax. It would be harder to get more money. Separate places would have to be made to accommodate those who were homeless. People also would be left hungry as they had no food to eat. These things costed a lot of money and could put London in economic crisis.

I agree with Rhia but I think that the mass death of the plague carrying rats is the second most important long term cause. This is because during that time the Bubonic plague had diminished greatly. It meant that it wouldn't grow again and people would be safer. With the destruction of the plague also meant that they could focus on rebuilding the city instead of burying more bodies if it were to grow again.

I think that the least important short term cause is that eighty-seven out of one hundred and nine churches were burnt. It is the least important because not being homeless and hungry is more important than going to pray to god at this time. If they keep on rebuilding London then later they would have plenty of time to pray later. Churches are the Home of God but if they focus on it then they wouldn't have enough money to rebuild homes. They should leave it to the last.

The last paragraph is not meant to offend anyone and sorry if it does hurt.

Thank You,
Shagun

Anna Talea Armstrong12:19
Hello Sir
I can not open the powerpoint when i try to open it it is just a big white mass of pages .
Anna Talea

Amaira Rahman12:20
the great fire of Londonone of the the main changes the fire caused was how the price of food went up. food prices had doubled from the price they had been the week before. This was an issue, as more people who had less food, or food that burnt away in the fire, might not be able to eat, especially the poor. this could have led to many people going into starvation. this was the biggest short term consequence.

I believe that the biggest long term consequence was how it fought off the plague. the blazing fire helped lead to the death of plague carrying rats. this was a good thing as the people of London for almost 300 years. although it may not have been as deadly during this time, it still had an impact on the citizens.

I believe that the least important short term consequence was how most of the churches were burnt down. this is because 1/4 of the population was homeless and starving, which was one of the biggest problems the country could have faced. Although most of the people could have lived in the churches, the deconstruction of them wouldn't have been as big of a problem compared to the other causes. the burning of the churches shouldn't really count as a problem (no offense to the Christians) compared to all the other things that had taken place. At the time though, this would have been considered a major problem as the English were deeply religious.

Amaira Rahman12:20
anna talea-
refresh your screen
the same thing happened to me

Ira Kaur12:24
Hello Sir,
For the second task are we to write it as a P/Ev/Ex paragraph?

Ira Kaur12:24
* First task I meant

Harshika Sivakumar12:26
I disagree with Shagun because I think that banning the Jetty style houses was the main long-term consequence. As since we have no Jetty style houses there are less fire outbreaks than before. Even if we do have a full time fire brigade it won't make much of difference as the fire will spread quickly due to how closely arched the houses were. If we did have jetty style houses everything would be dark and gloomy as due to its arched position there will be less sunlight to see. This could also cause crimes and terrorist attack to happen a lot easier like back then.

The 2nd important long-term consequence is placing a full time fire brigade. Since we now have a full time and an equipped fire brigade they deal with the fire and rescue people from a fire outbreak. Back then because they didn't have full time, equipped and experienced fire brigade the great fire went out of control and destroyed many houses.

The main short-term consequence was the price of foods. The economy of England was poor after the great fire this means they had to rise up the price of foods. Many people was jobless meaning they couldn't earn money for to satisfy their hunger. People can live without shelter for a while but they can't live without food or water. Without these necessary resources many could've died or got diseases.

The 2nd important short-term consequence was the situation of homeless people. Many people didn't have any shelter due to the destruction of their homes by the fire. As the King had ordered on building London, the new homes would probably be expensive meaning they would have to pay a lot money for the houses. This could cause them to go bankrupt or not even get house due to also the prices of food.

Thank you
Harshika

Adesopeoluwa Adewumi14:36
I believe that the most important short term consequence was when a 1/4 of the population was made homeless. This is because London was large city with a large population of 350,000 people. With almost all their belongings gone and little to no money it would be very difficult to get back on their feet. This meant London was full of hungry and weak people who were now living even more difficult lives than before.

I believe that the second most important short term consequence was the food prices going up. The price of food rose very high in a short amount of time with the price of bread doubling in no more than a week. As a lot of the population was homeless this just added to their expenses making simple necessities such as food increasingly hard to get. People were finding it harder to take care of their children and families especially foreigners who had already being suffering after being tortured and betrayed by their English neighbours.

I believe the most important long term consequence was the fire helping remove the plague. The plague was a terrible disease that had wiped out a lot of London's population this disease was brought to London through plague carrying rats. The fire caused a mass death of these plague carrying rats which led to the removal of the plague. This meant that although many died in the great fire London's population was still able to survive. The removal of the plague also took away from peoples worries since there was no longer a pear of disease.

I disagree with Rhia on what the second most important long term consequence is.
The second most important long term consequence was when Charles II banned "Jetty" styled houses. I think that although having a properly trained fire brigade is quite important I believe banning jetty style houses is more important. This is because if all house are flammable it makes it quite difficult for even a trained fire brigade to contain very large fires. With houses no longer being so flammable accidents as large and dangerous as the great fire of London are much less likely to happen.

Ella Cowey15:20
I think that one important short term consequence was when jetty style homes were banned. i think that this was not extremely important because there were lots of different houses and not all of them were jetty style. Thousands of people had to get new houses anyways, not making it too difficult to reduce the amout of jetty houses.
Similar to Adesope, I think that a more important short - term consequence was 25% of the population becoming homeless. this affected London as a city more because than the removal of jetty homes because it meant that approx 87500 people were homeless and it meant that London was even more full of hungry, homeless beggars.
I think that a highly important long - term consequence was the removal of the plague. the plague was a very contagious disease was passed on by rats that caused mass death. this would've been very important because it helped finally put an end to the disastrous disease.
I think a slightly less important long term cause was starting up a full time fire brigade. it was quite important because it is still a concept used today but it didn't help solve a long - term problem like the plague.

Ira Kaur15:27
I agree with Amaira and think that the most important short term consequence is the rising price of food. For example, there were many expenses having to be paid such as: the rebuilding of houses, replacing items and many more. On top of all that, they still had to pay for food which is now worth twice as much as before. This shows that many people would not be able to cover all the expenses as they had the usual tax to pay and a lot of other things to pay for. Seeing as a medieval peasant only made one groat (1/60 of a pound) per week , they would not be able to pay for it all.

The most important long term consequence of The Great Fire of London of 1666 was the introduction to full time fire brigades in each quarter of London. For example, when The Great Fire of London happened, the local City watch did not do anything about the situation with the baker's house. This shows that they were unprepared for the fire and had not the equipment for this entire situation. After The Fire, they realised how important it was to have resources at hand in case such a thing happens again.

The least important short term cause was the banning of the jetty-styled homes. For example, after The Fire had happened, the material of which the houses were made of, were brick or stone. This shows that the shape of the house would have not been affected as brick and stone are impossible to ignite. Even if the jetty-styled homes were built close together none of them would have been able to be set alight as the material is preventing this.

The least important long term cause was (not to offend anyone and if so I apologise) when 87/109 churches had been burnt down. For Example, even though they were religious in those times, those churches were rebuilt. This shows that even though a lot of churches had been burnt down, there were still other churches to pray inside. Those churches were still rebuilt and was not a definite loss as they were saved by building upon its remains.

Ira Kaur

Akarshana Kesavaraj15:51
I agree with Amaira on what the most the important short term consequence is as food is a basic necessity and everyone needs it to survive. Bread prices doubled in a short span of time showing that food was scarce and people need to have a lot of money in order to afford it. Other food items would have been burnt in the fire which is increasing the need of food. This will also increase the death rate if people are going to be starving.
Also it would be hard for people to feed their family as they were already homeless.

I agree with Adesope on the second most important short term consequence as the fire did remove the plague which could have saved many lives in the future from being affected by the plague.As rats were (I think) the primary source of the plague, during the fire many rats could have died. Historians only know how much people died not animals , including rats. This shows that the fire was actually helpful in order to tear down the plague. If the fire did not happen, the plague would have taken longer to get rid of and as I said it would affect a lot more people in the future if it werent for the fire.

I think the most important long term consequence was that of the fire brigade. Even if during the great fire of London there wasnt any one to actually take down the fire in future if there was going to be another fire , king Charles's idea was very much needed. Even if there wasnt fire brigades back at time when they needed them ,it ceratianly helped in the future.

I think that the least most important long term consequence was that of the new street plan. Even if it did help in transport ,the people could have helped to actually rebuild the city and actually make it useful. Even if it allowed more transport the whole city is in devastating conditions. People should focus more on that rather then this.

Thank you,
Akarshana

Sarah Mohamed Gadafi16:59
I agree with Adesope on the most important short-term consequence being when a 1/4 of the population became homeless. This meant that people had to camp outside in fields, and this made the already bad conditions they were living in worse. Not just, that, many people had lost their belongings with their homes in the fire. The possessions could have been very important to them and a big loss.

I partly agree with Amaira on how the most important short-term consequence is prices going up. I believe that a 1/4 of the population becoming homeless is more important than the prices going up because it still would be really hard to get bread even without the price of it doubling, since many people have lost their material possessions and homes, and this includes money. With little to no money, it would be very hard to buy basic needs without prices going up.

I think the most important long-term consequence is the churches being burnt down. One of the 87 of 107 churches were St Paul's Cathedral. Back then, people were very religious, and seeing the House of God being burnt down by a fire would have shocked a lot of people. Most people would assume it was indestructible, and seeing it burnt down might make them believe a little less in God. Others, however, would believe that something catastrophic would happen when St Paul's Cathedral was burnt down.

I agree with Akarshana on how the least important long term consequence was the new street plan. Even though it lessened the risk of buildings catching on fire and made transport easier, most people back then might view religion as more important, making the churches being burnt down more important.

- Sarah

Gabby Uyi-Oriakhi17:48
I agree with Adesope, I think that the most important short-term consequence was that ¼ of the population became homeless. This was very important because many people and families were left without homes and support. This left London vulnerable and in desperate need of help.

I agree with Akarshana, I think that the second most important short-term consequence was that the fire helped fight the plague. This meant that thousands of people were saved by the fire because if the plague had not been prevented, many more people could have died from this deadly disease.

I agree with Ira, I think that the most important long-term consequence was that Charles II initiated a full-time fire brigade. This is a very important event because this gave London an advantage over any other big fire outbreaks. Also, it made people feel safe and better about living in London .

The second most important long-term consequence was that 87-109 churches were burnt. This was a very important event because within that period, time religion was very important, and it would have spread panic because people might have thought if they didn't go to church, they would go to hell.

Emma Forche18:23
I mostly agree with Ogo because the plague did cause numerous deaths and it was a deadly disease that no one had a cure for at the time. So, when the rats ,who were spreading the plague, had died because of the fire, the plague had almost completely stopped.

To add to this, I agree with Ogo that the second most important short term consequence being that many thousands of people were left homeless. This is because it takes a very long time for homes to be built, and the streets of London would be packed, not to mention the sheer amount of dirt that was on the streets at that time.
The main important long term consequences of the Great Fire of London was that after the fire, Charles insisted that there would be a full time fire brigade who were trained in case of any fire in the future. This was a very important decision because we still have this today and it prevents lots of fires from spreading like the ones in 1666. He also provided them with fire-fighting equipment such as hoses and ladders. This meant that there would be no incident like the Great Fire of London happening again.

The 2nd most important long term consequence was that rubbish collections began to take place every week. Again, we still have this in place today and it was a great way to keep London clean at the time because there were lots of items just thrown around the street, making London dirty and compact. This would also help to stop diseases forming and spreading around because, without the trash pickup, there would be dirt and germs which could go onto a host like rats and spread a deadly disease.

Thank you,
Emma

Add class comment…