In recent scholarship, historians have revised downward the number of deaths attributed to the Great Chicago Fire, which began on October 8, 1871. For decades the event’s human cost has commonly been summarized as ‘‘around 300’’ to ‘‘300 or more’’ fatalities; new work comparing city records, newspapers, coroner’s reports and burial ledgers suggests that the true confirmed death toll is lower than many popular accounts assert. Scholars caution that any single definitive figure remains elusive. The conflagration destroyed roughly 2,000 acres and left more than 100,000 people homeless, and the chaotic conditions in its aftermath — mass displacement, improvised burials, and inconsistent record-keeping — complicate efforts to compile a complete list of victims. Early estimates appeared in newspaper reports and in charity appeals; some numbers were rounded or repeated without systematic verification. Modern researchers have revisited municipal death registers, cemetery records, coroner’s inquests and insurance documents to cross-check names and dates. Where earlier tallies sometimes conflated missing persons, those who died later of injuries or exposure, and deaths attributed to unrelated causes during the same period, recent tabulations separate immediate fire-related fatalities from subsequent mortalities linked to displacement and illness. The revised assessments emphasize confirmed, direct fatalities caused by the fire and its immediate physical effects — burns, crushing injuries, and smoke inhalation — rather than broader post-disaster deaths. As a result, the confidently documented total of direct fire deaths is smaller than many textbook summaries, though historians note that the wider human toll of the disaster remains severe when including later deaths, long-term hardship and economic devastation. This narrowing of the confirmed death toll does not diminish the scale of destruction: the fire consumed much of Chicago’s central business district and residential neighborhoods, prompting an intense relief effort that included local, national and international aid. It also catalyzed building code reforms, changes in fire-fighting organization and rapid rebuilding that transformed the city’s architecture and infrastructure. Methodologically, the reassessment reflects both greater archival access and more rigorous cross-referencing between sources. Digitized newspapers, surviving coroner’s registers, municipal council minutes and cemetery interment logs allow researchers to identify duplicate names, misreported locations and temporal mismatches that previously inflated counts. The revision also highlights the limits of 19th-century urban record-keeping and the role of popular narrative in shaping collective memory. Historians stress transparency about uncertainties: studies typically present a range (confirmed direct deaths, probable additional deaths, and broader mortality related to displacement and disease) rather than a single figure. Public descriptions of the disaster that continue to cite higher rounded numbers often reflect older summaries or the inclusion of indirect fatalities. For the public and educators, the reassessment offers an example of how historical understanding evolves as sources are re-examined and methodologies improve. It also underscores that numerical revisions do not lessen the disaster’s significance: the Great Chicago Fire remains a defining event in the city’s history for its immediate destruction, the humanitarian response it provoked and its long-term urban and regulatory consequences. Where available, published studies and archival compilations document the data and the reasoning behind revised totals; researchers encourage reliance on recent scholarly work or primary-source compilations rather than repeating legacy figures without qualification.