SeanF

Either Dany made herself up for the occasion, or slaughtering her enemies put her in a better frame of mind.

It's not the same, but nor is it so big a leap. Once you've got into the habit of killing your enemies horribly, it gets easier to create pretexts for killing.

IMHO, in a real medieval society, Daenerys' actions would have been considered harsh, but legitimate. That doesn't mean that we should not condemn such actions, or punish those who perpetrate them in our age.

It depends. Massacring a town's population that immediately offered to surrender would be considered a crime. Massacring a population that offered resistance, before then attempting to surrender, would not be. And a town's inhabitants would usually be deemed liable for the acts of their rulers. It's a wicked attitude, but one that was and is widespread.

Rhaenys burned Plankytown (a floating town of several thousand people) to the waterline. After her death, Aegon and Visenya torched every castle, holdfast, and village they could reach.

You may still get your wish.

I interpret that nod differently, more like "You know what your orders are." Grey Worm does not hurl his spear until Dany begins burning.

The Dornish war sounds as though it was almost genocidal.

Sulla put Rome to the sack, when he captured the city. When the common people started pelting his men with tiles from their apartments, he set them ablaze.

Yes. The rape and murder of Elia of Dorne is considered a terrible crime. The rape and murder of Elia of Flea Bottom would go unnoticed.

It is better to feared than to be loved, but one must avoid making oneself hated. Dany's view is more "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me."

McGlynn makes the point (convincingly in my view) that sacks were more likely to be ordered from the top rather than simply the result of out of control soldiers running amok. IMHO, Dany planned to massacre a large number of the inhabitants, so she burned her way through the city. She had instructed Grey Worm to carry out a massacre as well. Once the Dothraki and Northern soldiers saw what was happening, they knew their commander was letting them off the leash, and they joined in.

I'd recommend to anyone, By Sword and Fire, Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare by Sean McGlynn, which is riveting, if depressing. Plenty of medieval commanders would have done exactly what Dany did, upon capturing a city that had offered resistance, and whose commander had executed her best friend in front of her, at a parley. They, like she, would hold all the inhabitants collectively guilty for the decisions of their leaders. Beziers, Soissons, Cesena, Rome, Herat, Delhi, Baghdad, and countless other cities and towns bear witness to that. And, that's not to deny that the murder of civilians in Kings Landing was evil and barbaric.

Innocent people have died horribly at her hands previously (eg Hizdahr's father, possibly the noble who was fed to Drogon) along with people who had some justification (eg Mirri Maz Duur, Randyll and Dickon Tarly). She knew that loads of Smallfolk would die to fulfill her ambitions (hence her speech to the Dothraki about tearing down the stone houses in Season 6). Time and again, she's been talked out of razing cities to the ground. Her cruelty and ruthlessness have been hiding in plain sight since Season 1.

It's not been an overnight change. This is a person who has burned and crucified her enemies from way back. She's concluded that the inhabitants of Westeros will never love her, so she'll make them fear her.

Bonkers, or simply cruel and terrible?

The lesson she took was "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me."

I'm not saying it's fair, but it's her justification..

I take the criticisms, but in and of itself, I thought the episode was very entertaining. Daenerys' motive for carrying out mass murder was made plain, when she spoke from the throne. The people of Kings Landing, unlike those of Meereen, made no attempt to resist Cersei. Therefore, she judges them guilty. That's a horrific attitude, but one that plenty of conquerors have adopted.

I think it was worse.

Actually, I think she explained it quite well in her scene with Jon. Others will conspire, regardless of what Jon wants.

It took me a while to figure that out. Initially, I thought it was analogous the the Mongol invasion of Northern China.

But, beware. You won't be able to guess the outcome of any particular story simply by knowing the history of the period. Kay will move events in different directions to what actually happened, and commonly, a character will be based on a couple of real-life figures, rather than just one (which makes the stories more interesting, of course).

If Ellaria's still alive, I expect she'll go up in flames with the rest of Kings Landing.

One minor comment I'd make is that (to me) Gurcu is a mix of Mehmet II and Suleiman the Magnificent, given that his armies have conquered the entire (fantasy) Balkans. In the same way that I saw Leontius as a combination of Belisarius and Leo III (the Iconoclast).