So from Aegon the IV's rule (172AC) to Jaehaerys II (262AC), let's say that all 6 of them are good rulers.

Aegon IV being an adventurous type of man who wants to learn other cultures, made good will with most of the free cities, closer ties, etc.

Daeron II.... well, no Blackfyre rebellion I suppose.

Aerys I* instead of being a Viserys I 2.0, he makes several minor reforms and upgrades to major infastructures (kingsroad, some semblance of civilized sanitary in Kingslanding... etc.)

Maekar I, same with Daeron II, no rebellions. Um... as for how he became the King without one... uh. Anyway, he focused on some minor centralizations, raising the numbers of the royal's houseguard to that of a small army.

Aegon V inspired by Aerys II's reforms, he did a LOT more reforms than canon. Leading to a LOT more resistance akin to a blackfyre rebellion, but was eventually quelled and the damage healed. And he never died by burning himself, he just... died. I suppose.

Jaehaerys II the Band of Nine wouldn't form since there's no Blackfyre, so his reign is just normal.

So the reason for the above is... how destructive would Aerys II's second half of madness' reign would be? Would it still go the same as Canon, the Targaryens kicked out, or would Robert and the other great lords sit a Targaryen blood on the throne, still? Is their almost century of proof of good reign be enough for the Targaryens to retain the throne?

Or would something else happen?