Game of Thrones begins....

[Razgovory]

You know what the odd thing is?  The fact that so many people are upset with a city burning.  Pre-modern warfare was pretty brutal.  Hell, modern warfare can be brutal.  There are people walking around today who have personally taken part in the burning of entire cities.  Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg...  Most people weren't too bothered by that 70 years ago.  Pre-modern soldiers and statemen were probably even less bothered by it.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Why Did Dany Destroy King's Landing? Some Theories From History
To viewers, Daenerys's decision to obliterate the Westerosi capital of King's Landing, a seaside city of 1 million people, would seem to transform her into "the Mad Queen." After her army's successful breaching of the city walls with the help of her dragon, the defending Lannister forces surrendered. Yet Khaleesi continued raining fire on men, women, and children indiscriminately. These are cruel acts, and they may have a purpose: Lords who would otherwise be unlikely to support a foreign invader, especially when news has spread of Jon Snow's hereditary claim to the Iron Throne, must now fear that if they resist Dany, they'll end up as ashes, too.

Possibly the most divisive episode in Thrones history, "The Bells" was redolent with reminders of real-world history: the Dresden firebombing, Vesuvius's mass charring of bodies, Hitler and Eva Braun's bunker death, and even the recent rubble of Aleppo. Conquering soldiers took license to rape and slaughter civilians, just as they have throughout humankind's existence. Looking for more historical context on scorched-earth generals like Daenerys, I spoke with Barry Strauss, a historian at Cornell University who specializes in leaders of the ancient world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/05/real-history-explains-game-thrones-latest-twist/589357/

[The Minsky Moment]

You know what the odd thing is?  The fact that so many people are upset with a city burning.  Pre-modern warfare was pretty brutal.  Hell, modern warfare can be brutal.  There are people walking around today who have personally taken part in the burning of entire cities.  Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg...  Most people weren't too bothered by that 70 years ago.  Pre-modern soldiers and statemen were probably even less bothered by it.

Rome was "sacked: about a half dozen times without actually being burned, razed, levelled etc.  The more common pre-modern practice was to limit destruction to the prize of conquest, i.e. the same rationale advanced by Tyrion, et al. There are exceptions but they notable for being exceptions like the exemplary destruction of certain cities by the Mongols or the punitive razing of the Jerusalem temple.

You are mixing up 20th centural mass total war thinking with pre-modern and ancient practice.

[Razgovory]

You know what the odd thing is?  The fact that so many people are upset with a city burning.  Pre-modern warfare was pretty brutal.  Hell, modern warfare can be brutal.  There are people walking around today who have personally taken part in the burning of entire cities.  Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg...  Most people weren't too bothered by that 70 years ago.  Pre-modern soldiers and statemen were probably even less bothered by it.

Rome was "sacked: about a half dozen times without actually being burned, razed, levelled etc.  The more common pre-modern practice was to limit destruction to the prize of conquest, i.e. the same rationale advanced by Tyrion, et al. There are exceptions but they notable for being exceptions like the exemplary destruction of certain cities by the Mongols or the punitive razing of the Jerusalem temple.

You are mixing up 20th centural mass total war thinking with pre-modern and ancient practice.

I'm not saying the cities were totally destroyed, though some were.  Presumably there are many survivors in King's Landing and the city will be rebuilt.  Sacking a city tended to involve large scale destruction and fire was extremely common.  I know that Rome burned in at least two of the time's it was sacked (by Gauls and Visigoths).  Probably more.

[Grinning_Colossus]

You are mixing up 20th centural mass total war thinking with pre-modern and ancient practice.

Blame GRRM, not Raz. Martin was a conscientious objector during 'Nam, and this is 100% "we had to destroy the [city] in order to save it."

[Josquius]

Why Did Dany Destroy King's Landing? Some Theories From History
To viewers, Daenerys's decision to obliterate the Westerosi capital of King's Landing, a seaside city of 1 million people, would seem to transform her into "the Mad Queen." After her army's successful breaching of the city walls with the help of her dragon, the defending Lannister forces surrendered. Yet Khaleesi continued raining fire on men, women, and children indiscriminately. These are cruel acts, and they may have a purpose: Lords who would otherwise be unlikely to support a foreign invader, especially when news has spread of Jon Snow's hereditary claim to the Iron Throne, must now fear that if they resist Dany, they'll end up as ashes, too.

Possibly the most divisive episode in Thrones history, "The Bells" was redolent with reminders of real-world history: the Dresden firebombing, Vesuvius's mass charring of bodies, Hitler and Eva Braun's bunker death, and even the recent rubble of Aleppo. Conquering soldiers took license to rape and slaughter civilians, just as they have throughout humankind's existence. Looking for more historical context on scorched-earth generals like Daenerys, I spoke with Barry Strauss, a historian at Cornell University who specializes in leaders of the ancient world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/05/real-history-explains-game-thrones-latest-twist/589357/

It would be a valid argument in other circumstances.
But when earlier in the same episode it was made clear that everyone except the lannisters is supporting her, she has nothing to prove.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Varys didn't support her. The North (and, by extension, the Vale) are increasingly dubious allies. No one seems to be in charge of most of the other kingdoms.

[Josephus]

Not the biggest problem this season, but I got a good laugh from the fact that nearly none of the recipients of the "don't tell anybody! ever! never! Promise it!" Jon/Aegon secret makes even a token attempt at actually keeping it a secret.

Sansa is the only one that instantly backstabs Jon, as far as I know.  Jon should have realized that she is just Littlefinger with boobs, and that trusting her word as folly, but Jon Is Dumb.  He's pretty much shown that he is not fit for the throne, either.

Speaking of which--have we seen her boobs?

[Tamas]

It would be a valid argument in other circumstances.
But when earlier in the same episode it was made clear that everyone except the lannisters is supporting her, she has nothing to prove.

It was made quite clear that nobody is genuinly supporting her except for the ex-slaves and the Dothraki. Everyone else was on board due to lack of a better option. The North especially. Jon submitted initially because he needed her help (little he knew all he needed was Arya).

[grumbler]

It was made quite clear that nobody is genuinly supporting her except for the ex-slaves and the Dothraki. Everyone else was on board due to lack of a better option. The North especially. Jon submitted initially because he needed her help (little he knew all he needed was Arya).

Burning the city changes that fact not at all.  Pretty much every leader gets 95% of their support because they are the least bad option; I'd guess that only about 5% of their supporters probably reckon that a given leader is the best possible one.

[crazy canuck]

Blame GRRM, not Raz. Martin was a conscientious objector during 'Nam, and this is 100% "we had to destroy the [city] in order to save it."

We shall see whether your assumption that this is what GRRM communicated to the writers is correct in time.  But for now, we should put the blame with the people who actually wrote the episode.

It was made quite clear that nobody is genuinly supporting her except for the ex-slaves and the Dothraki. Everyone else was on board due to lack of a better option. The North especially. Jon submitted initially because he needed her help (little he knew all he needed was Arya).

Jon swore fealty to her again when he confirmed that she was his Queen.
Tyrion supported her by bringing Varys' betrayal to her.  He also affirmed his loyalty to her.  In fact he arranged a way the city could be saved for her benefit.

Your explanations are as lazy as the writing in the show.

[Tamas]

But you are ignoring how Dany looked at these things. Tyrion "failed her" according to her own words because he went to Varys first instead of Dany. Jon refuses to love her.

yes, her worldview is shown clumsily and with the general lack of talent the showmakers have shown, but it is there.

[The Minsky Moment]

It was made quite clear that nobody is genuinly supporting her except for the ex-slaves and the Dothraki. Everyone else was on board due to lack of a better option.

It's a pre-modern morarchy.  Legitimacy matters.  She is definitely a legitimate Targaryen heir, there is no other close contender in the show, other than Jon, whose claim is based on his brother's magic visions and his best friend's interpretation of a passage in a stolen book, and whose claim is contradicted by the formal acknowledgement of parentage by Ned Stark, reputed for his punctilious honesty.

[crazy canuck]

But you are ignoring how Dany looked at these things. Tyrion "failed her" according to her own words because he went to Varys first instead of Dany. Jon refuses to love her.

yes, her worldview is shown clumsily and with the general lack of talent the showmakers have shown, but it is there.

You said everyone else was on board and you gave the reason as being that a better option was not available.  The other option swore fealty to her and recommitted to that oath.  Tyrion - her Hand, knew of the better option and knowing about that other option turned Varys in because Varys was actively pursuing that other option.  It is incredibly sloppy writing to have written all that into the very same episode where we are being asked to accept that her sudden descent into madness was because nobody was supporting her.

Vayrs' sudden change of allegiance (remember he has always supported a return of the Targaryen line) is also remarkable and was obviously written in the foreshadow "valid" concerns.  But it was also completely out of character for him.  The whole thing is a mess.  Why would he have been working all these years to return a Targaryen to the throne if he really believed they were no better than a genetic crap shoot and his true wish was for the Seven Kingdoms to be ruled by a just monarch?

[The Minsky Moment]

What would have made sense is if Varys' plot all along was to bring republican rule to Westeros, and is using the Targaryen claimants to wipe out all contenders for the throne with the ultimate intention of discrediting and eliminating Dany as well.  He did make his name in the Free Cities and has oligarchic connections there.

But the notion that Varys really thinks he can bring about lasting, stable and just absolutist rule through King Jon Snow is silly.