After the last dragon died were the Targaryen's always going to loose the throne?

[ThirdUnsulliedFromTheLeft]

They conquered Westeros with three dragons and a small army, six of the seven kingdoms fell in just two years. Dorne...joined a long time after, through marriage. It was the first time that Westeros was unified under a single King, a single family. It was not a natural state of politics to Westeros. Each of its seven kingdoms had a decided personality and ruling Dynasty. Which had developed over thousands of years. But they all had to bend the knee because in the end you can't argue with Dragon fire.

After the last dragon died; good kingship, House alliances through marriage, the oath of allegiance important to the honor of some ruling families and the still potent mysticism/propaganda of the Targaryen Legend could keep the Kingdom in check.

But all it would take is a Mad King and his growing paranoia and the Targaryen legend and legitimacy starts to die. A few of the ruling Lords wake up and start talking to each other. It is now a kingdom based on alliances and more importantly, not on the fear of retribution through dragon fire. The Targaryens become the Usurpers in the eyes of the old Andal/First men families and they can start making their own alliances. And they did.

I think the Southron ambitions theory is correct but its main aim was a return to the seven kingdoms and more importantly the Stark's return to Kingship of the North.

Without Dragons to back them up all you are left with is a Family that conquered a vast kingdom with less than 1600 men.

That is why they were so desperate to hatch them anew.

[The Santa of House Claus]

I believe so. I mean, they lost their "big stick" and it seems that there were only a handful of actually good kings. The North was always a lot more independent then the other kingdoms, them and the Iron Island. I think there could have been a fracture at the least, with the Crownlands, Reach, and Stormlands all staying as one kingdom behind a Targaryen, possible with Dorne also. Though I could see Dorne grabbing for independence just as easily, if the North and Iron Islands went for it also. The Baratheons and Tyrells owe their position to House Targaryen, the Tully's do as well, but they obviously did not maintain the same affection for the kings. Westeros could have divided into 3 or 4 kingdoms, Dorne, Southlands (crownlands, stormlands, reach), Nothlands (riverlands, vale, and the North), and the Iron Islands.

The Westerlands would be one of the tricky ones. If Robert's Rebellion does not happen and say another generation passes, the Tywin could pass down his bitterness and resentment for the Mad King, making it possible that they take no side and try to establish their own independence again, as they were kings once.

This is all assuming Robert's Rebellion does not happen and another generation or so passes. So then a generation or so later the North starts the move for independence, followed by the Iron Born. Maybe Rhaegar died young or proved to be just as Mad as his father. But I would go with an early death by Rhaegar then possible Viserys trying to take the crown.

North - It is Brandon, not Eddard that is now the Lord of Winterfell, or possible his and Cat's son. Eddard could be married to Ashara Dayne, but if Rickard did have some southern or independent ambitions, I think it more likely Eddard would be married to a Vale Lady (though, what about Cersei, wouldn't that suck for Ned), but lets go with a Lady of the Vale, possible with Arryn blood. So Brandon has strong ties to his neighboring kingdoms, and with a weakened crown due to Viserys being, well, Viserys, Brandon declares his independence, maybe in conjunction with Dorne and the Iron Islands.

Dorne - They would have marriage ties to the Targaryens but with just a different culture it is easy to see them trying for independence.

Stormlands - House Baratheon owe's its place to the Targaryens, though the Storm Lord would be at least half a Stark, but without Lyanna being kidnapped, Robert has no reason to really hate the Targaryen kings and given the location of the Stormlands, unless the Reach and them both decided to conquer and divide the Crownlands and reestablish their own kingdoms again, I do not see the Stormlands breaking from House Targaryen.

The Reach - Same goes here, the Targs raised up the Tyrells and the Tyrells stayed loyal to the Targs in the Rebellion so I have no reason to think they wouldn't break with them now.

Westerlands - Tywin continues to nurse his wounded pride against the Mad King and would likely pass that along to his Heir, though I am not sure who that would be. Jaime is stuck in the King's Guard, Tywin despises Tyrion and would likely find some way to pass over... or kill him. Maybe Tywin marries Cersei to a Lannister cousin (Tywin married a cousin, so did Rickard Stark), anyway, the Lannister Lord would have no real love for the Targs, but would not be interested in living under Northern rule, so they go for their own independence.

Riverlands - With the Lord or Heir of Winterfell being half a Tully, I think the Riverlords declare for the Starks. I do not think they could survive as their own kingdom, it's boarders are just to open so it will need allies. Plus, with strong ties to the Starks, I am not sure a Targ king would really trust them.

Vale - The Vale rallies to the Starks in part due to marriage alliances, and also because of the southern kingdoms staying together, so the smarter move would be to make a larger Northern kingdom to counter.

Iron Islands - They make their move for Independence at the same time as Dorne and the North, but I think they would need to ally themselves to either the new Northern Kingdom or the Lannisters in order to survive, on their own, I do not see them surviving long

[Malkan]

Maybe not lost, but they would have to let go of their absolute power, the other lords could have push for a carta magna, an a council not chosen by the king would rule the kingdom

[Lee-Sensei]

@ The Santa of House Claus You're reasoning makes sense for most of them, but...

1) The Baratheons are also decended from the Durrendons. It's not like with the Tyrells. They don't really owe the Targs.

2) The Vale rallying to the Starks is very unlikely. Why not the other way around? They really don't have that much in common, although an alliance as separate Kingdoms isn't unlikely. The Starks have zero claim to the Vale and the Valelords don't care.

[lancerman]

Not really. Horrendously stupid things were done by House Targaryen in the lead up to the split and had the actors been more rational the Kingdom stays intact.

-Aerys was crazy and alienated his allies. That's the big flaw.

-Rheagar lost his mind and kidnapped the daughter of one powerful House and the betrothed to another.

-Aery's burns the Starks.

Then you had things that were pure happenstance like Rheagar losing to Robert in battle.

The last dragon being dead didn't really mean anything. They lasted awhile without dragons. Aerys was a horrible king and his supposed greater successor made one of the dumbest decisions he could make. If none of that happens, Rheagar quietly removes Aerys and the status quo is retained.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Not necessarily. If the incest had stopped and the Egg's children didn't marry for love, they'd be good at least until the War for Dawn.

[The Bittersteel]

Yes, without dragons the Crownlands are the only near guaranteed support of the major regions and aren't enough to sway a war on their own. It would only take multiple powerful regions to rise up (as was the case with Robert's rebellion) and it's game over.

[Mal Malenkirk]

The problem is they never evolved their government.

Intially it was a 'Dragon Monarchy'. The Targaryen were basically simply overlords who directly controlled very little land and pretty much simply collected tribute from vassals who possessed far larger holdings then they did. And they did so without providing any services in exhange beside a modicum of policing. In 300 years, their greatest engineering projects was the King's Road, and it's not even paved!! In other words, the Targaryen felt very little urge to develop their holdings, they might not even thought of Westeros as their holding, just as a bunch of lesser state paying their dues to their better. And they had to, or else!

Then the dragons died.

It becames just an alliance. The Targaryen had very little armies of their own and to put an unruly lord paramount back in his place they needed the support of the other Lord Paramounts. It's very fragile and in all the time they spent without dragons they made no worthwhile effort to consolidate power and unify the various states.

So when a father and son combo came up with the brillant idea to piss off 4 lord paramounts in a short lapse of time, the house of cards came crashing down. It's as if Aerys and Rhaegar did not realize that ALL their power was derived from the consentment of these guys they were pissing off one after the other.

And the place STILL is unrulable as it stands now. They have to adapt their government because being a despotic monarchy without direct control over sufficient armies to enforce your will is a really shitty concept.

[King of the Rock]

It doesn't necessarily mean that they're doomed, but it does put them in a precarious position. Precarious like pissing off some of your lords and having them turn on you, ending your dynasty. I imagine they did pretty well in their position since no one really tried deposing them. Their lords still feared and obeyed them.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

I mean, eventually sure, like every other royal family ever. The idea that you really can have a line of kings last for 5k years which apparently was the case with the Starks et al is just plain ridiculous (honestly, it's probably not even true in-universe). Eventually you don't have a direct heir, so there's some kind of a war/conflict, and someone ends up starting a new dynasty. Usually, like in the case of RR, there is a blood tie to the original family, but they might call themselves Baratheons (Tudors) instead of Targaryens (Lancaster).

I don't think there's any credible evidence that the Targs were any less likely than anyone else to keep the 7K together. If anything the tradition with the dragons weighed on everyone's minds - plus, unlike andal and first men kings, they have no particular stake in any part of the 7K, so there's a certain "impartiality" which comes from being foreigners. So, you're left with the idea that it's "impossible" to rule the 7K without dragons. Seems like the Targs did it for about 150 years. Not a bad run all things considered.

[Colonel Green]

Though I could see Dorne grabbing for independence just as easily, if the North and Iron Islands went for it also.

Dorne only joined the Seven Kingdoms voluntarily after the dragons were gone, so the absence of the dragons is a non-factor in their being part of the Seven Kingdoms.

Within the context of the world of Westeros, where you have these millennia-spanning dynasties that have no equivalent in the real world, I don't think the end of the dragons made anything inevitable. If anything, the danger should have been greatest soon after the dragons were gone, but that wasn't the case. And the main problem that occupied the Seven Kingdoms' time following the end of the dragons was House Blackfyre, which is a Targaryen cadet branch. Aegon I changed the rules of the game, to the point where people see the whole continent, not just their corner of it.

The only truly ongoing separatist movement in the history of the Seven Kingdoms is in the Iron Islands, and that the Iron Islands should remain ground under the bootheel of the mainland is one of the major policy prescriptions that all of the Seven Kingdoms would tend to agree on.

The Northern separatist movement, by comparison, only really came about in response to a really complicated political scenario. Moreover, the Northern separatist movement immediately joined itself to the Riverlands, and would have eagerly included the Vale as well had the Arryns responded to their claim, so exactly how set they are on a distinctive Northern identity is pretty dubious.

[Pod The Impaler]

I think it was the case. It is very hard to maintain hold over any sort of kingdom, much less a continent-sized one. Westeros is an empire in all but name, but militarily, socially, religiously, ecnomically, there is plenty of reason why they would naturally pull apart. (The oddest thing about Westeros is the prevalence of a common language across all of it. Normally languages and ethnic groups should be much more diverse.)

The Targaryens did not seem to set up a very sophisticated system like that of Imperial China or something, to cope with the demands of running it all. Maesters might have formed a sort of imperial bureaucracy, had they been used that way, but they were not. Also, the Faith of the Seven is nowhere near as powerful as the Church was in medieval Europe. House Targaryen did not create a centralized army system like the Roman legions.

Basically, dragons are the key. They can at a stroke make armies and fortifications nearly irrelevant. They can travel farther and faster than any army can march, and see the enemy from above.

The dragons are controlled exclusively by those of Valyrian blood. It is therefore a weapon no other noble house can match. While you can kill a dragon, it is extremely difficult, and probably easier to simply kill the rider.

The Targaryens, without dragons, are just mortals. Want what they have? Kill them. Want them to not have anything of yours? Kill them. Sure, they can also bring armies, but so can you, and then it's just mortal men fighting, and the victor gets the spoils.

Without dragons, the North does not bend the knee, ever. The Ironborn do not stop reaving. Who knows what Dorne does ? A marriage brought them under the crown, not a war.

If Eddard Stark had not been a friend to Robert and Jon Arryn, and married to a Tully, would the realm have held together under Robert ? Likely not. 4 kingdoms united more strongly than usual in rebellion, and a 5th added when Robert wed Cersei. However, if the rest (Riverlands, Dorne, Crownlands, Iron Islands) had somehow united their forces they might still have fought the Usurper for years - but to what end? At the end of the day, House Targaryen was just another noble family, with no particular right to rule, compared to the others.)

If, for example, Viserys and Daenerys had been captured but not put to death, under the new regime they might have a future as House Targaryen of Dragonstone, and nothing more. The only reason they might be touted as royal again is that they had been royal before. Fast forward 15 years, and maybe Lord Viserys of Dragonstone married Myrcella "Baratheon", while Daenerys marries ... Renly? Robb Stark? Joffrey ? Edmure ? Basically, the Targaryen dynasty officially concludes and the Baratheon dynasty is re-confirmed by a peaceful transition to its second generation of rule.

But that is if the realm's various major regions see fit to preserve a unified state for its own sake - if they do not, it will break apart as lord name themselves kings, and manage to preserve their claims by victory in war. Once the greater kingdom starts to lose one part, other parts will see weakness and strike out on their own too, or try to wrest dominance away from the current capital and royal family, precipitating a war which may have the same result. Eddard and Robert are friends, but Robb Stark declares independence from Robert's heirs and with the help of the Ironborn and Dornish, fracture the realm into 4 pieces or more. Or Highgarden decides it has had enough of King's Landing and the Baratheons, and Tyrell pawn king Renly I tries to move the capital to Highgarden. The Stormlands, Crownlands and vale resist, and ... same thing happens - broken kingdom.