How could Rome have burned when most of the buildings were made of stone and marble?

Question

For instance, the original Roman Pantheon was built of travertine, yet it was destroyed by fire. My understanding is that most of the buildings that burnt during the great fire under Nero's reign were also of rock, concrete, marble. etc. How would a fire destroy these building materials?

Answer 1

the palace walls were made of stone (be it marbe or whatever). So were the temples- but not the houses in the city.

A typical house in Rome was called an "insula" (island) and had 7 or 8 storeys. Lowest down were the shops, higher up were apartments.
These houses were mostly wood- lower level walls made of stone and plaster, but with wooden floors, ceilings, roofs etc. Upper storeys were made of wood to save on weight. Also wooden staircases. Add to this furniture, cooking oil, cooking firewood, etc. Plenty to burn
Even the palaces had wood in their construction- roof beams, furniture, floors, etc. Once a big fire started, there was plenty to burn,

Answer 2

The poor lived in wood houses and rich in marble and stone. What happened was, what scientist think, a volcanoe erupted and made people flee the city. Many people died and many buildings got destroide. Volcanoes are very stroung and can destroy marble if it is hot enough.

Answer 3

So was the World Trade Center. Anything will burn with enough heat. That is how Earth and the planets were created, starting with molten material.

Answer 4

not ALL of the buildings were marble or stone. many of the poorer people lived in wooden buildings with a kind of plaster coating on the outside.

Answer 5

The buildings may have been stone but their contents weren't. Subjecting stone to high heat weakens it to the point it can crumble.

Answer 6

Not true!

Most were made of wood.

Only the major edifices were made of stone.

Answer 7

pitch holding together, wood framage...

and lots of explosive ****