Why does house Bolton still exist?

[Free Northman Reborn]

I would add that I think there was a major player in the North back in ancient times who we have not been introduced to yet. I imagine the World Book might give us some insight into this House.

And by that I am referring to the House that must have ruled the Manderly lands in the Age of Heroes. We know the Wolfs Den was established around 4000 years ago, to protect the White Knife from Sea Raiders. We also know that before this the mouth of the White Knife was unprotected, yet apparently under control of the Starks.

If you consider that the Manderly lands are among the most southerly and fertile in the entire North, and that any First Men migration into the North must first have passed through the White Knife region before it reached Winterfell, the Dreadfort, Hornwood, the Umber lands and the Wall, then it is logical that the Manderly lands must have been the most prized possession in the early North.

It was warmer, more fertile, had a navigable river and likely could support the largest population of any region in the North. And yet we see that the area is unclaimed before Jon Stark builds the Wolfs Den there.

I would argue that some centuries prior to the establishment of the Wolfsden, the Starks must have defeated and eradicated whichever House ruled these lands before. And this House must have been a major player alongside the Starks and Boltons, in the politics of the North. Probably the King of the White River, or King of the Bite, or some such title.

It might well be that the Boltons allied with this King for centuries, to match the power of the Starks in the earliest of days. And with whichever lord ruled the Karstark lands in the distant past.

I am most interested to learn more about this. Ran has already alluded to some "interesting Kings" that ran around the North in the Age of Heroes.

[Game Of Thrones]

Working within the framework of "something magical" going on, I'm pretty open to nearly any ideas about the nature of that rivalry. It even could have begun as one thing, and then transformed into something more opportunistic and inimical in the later transgressions. So it might not always be the same thing each time. For example, with the bolded, perhaps at one point they rose to challenge Southron Ambitions/ no Stark in Winterfell for the greater good or something, but another time they saw those Southron Ambitions as a good excuse to make a move.

There's so many questions about Stark domination I think. How far were the Starks pushing things in terms of control? What other sorts of magic did they attempt to dabble in? They're the only "organization" besides Valyria that kept its power for so long, and the other notable magical House; we know how Valyria kept their dominance for that long, so why assume the Starks did due to sound financial planning and merciful governance? Why must there be a Stark in Winterfell? Is that adage more of a "curse" imprisoning them than a statement of responsibility? Is it mere coincidence the winter storm is emanating from Winterfell now that there are no Starks there and a Bolton's occupying it?

Nope. House Durrandon is presumably older than the Starks, with Bran building SE and all. And the Stormlands in their heyday was far more powerful than anything House Stark could summon. And I'm pretty sure Stannis isn't magical.

House Gardener is also 10,000 years old.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Nope. House Durrandon is presumably older than the Starks, with Bran building SE and all. And the Stormlands in their heyday was far more powerful than anything House Stark could summon. And I'm pretty sure Stannis isn't magical.

House Gardener is also 10,000 years old.

Nope. The Starks were clearly the most powerful of the First Man kingdoms when the Andals arrived. They ruled most or all of the North, while the South was ruled by 100 petty kings. The Durrendons were just one of these 100 petty kings.

[theriveryeti]

Now, I agree with the analysis of the possible political context, but for me this is where things start to move into the "magical" territory again. It is as if Lord Bolton and the Bastard of Bolton are working in concert in this (re)capturing of northern lands, but it's awfully hard to explain how that could be (though admittedly there's much I don't understand about how ravens find the proper recipients in the field during wartime). For me the magical elements come in every time I encounter Roose talking about Ramsay, and especially "bad blood": Roose, he of "a peaceful land, a quiet people" has all his "bad blood" leeched away, while he remarks that Ramsay's "tainted blood would poison even leeches." Personally, I think that Roose's bad blood, drawn by leeches, is the source for Ramsay's violent, sadistic but powerful and so far, successful behavior, that the two of them act like two complementary parts of a whole. I know this is all crackpotty, but the feeling that something supernatural is going on with Roose/Ramsay is enhanced by Roose's strange sort of passivity about Ramsay, as if something has been set in motion that he has to see through to whatever its conclusion will be, Ramsay's "ice eyes" as an infant having been the signal for the start of whatever special function is supposed to be played by the Bastard of the Dreadfort/Bastard of Bolton. I realize this is all problematic in terms of timing, in that Ramsay is born before all the hijinks of Robert's Rebellion, back when Rickon was Lord of Winterfell. I also know it's probably fallacious to assume that present circumstances are some sort of key to the past character of House Bolton, and maybe there's not even something magical going on with House Bolton in the present. And I certainly don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the magical properties or origins of House Bolton, if it's intended more as a conversation about the political realities of the North, past and present, since there are other good threads where that conversation can take place.

I like the idea that Roose would be a lot more Ramsay-esque (and maybe more like his forefathers) if he wasn't leeching.

[butterbumps!]

Nope. House Durrandon is presumably older than the Starks, with Bran building SE and all. And the Stormlands in their heyday was far more powerful than anything House Stark could summon. And I'm pretty sure Stannis isn't magical.

House Gardener is also 10,000 years old.

If Bran the Builder built Storms End, then it places the Stark line before that. It's sort of weird you used a known figure of House Stark's building the Durrendon's ancestral seat to support the idea that the Starks are a newer House.

Allegedly House Stark became Kings of Winter 8k years ago, when Winterfell was built. Other Houses claim 10k years ago foundings, like the Daynes. But it doesn't look like any of these other kings held the consolidated power the Starks did for as long as they did.

I would add that I think there was a major player in the North back in ancient times who we have not been introduced to yet. I imagine the World Book might give us some insight into this House.

And by that I am referring to the House that must have ruled the Manderly lands in the Age of Heroes. We know the Wolfs Den was established around 4000 years ago, to protect the White Knife from Sea Raiders. We also know that before this the mouth of the White Knife was unprotected, yet apparently under control of the Starks.

If you consider that the Manderly lands are among the most southerly and fertile in the entire North, and that any First Men migration into the North must first have passed through the White Knife region before it reached Winterfell, the Dreadfort, Hornwood, the Umber lands and the Wall, then it is logical that the Manderly lands must have been the most prized possession in the early North.

It was warmer, more fertile, had a navigable river and likely could support the largest population of any region in the North. And yet we see that the area is unclaimed before Jon Stark builds the Wolfs Den there.

I would argue that some centuries prior to the establishment of the Wolfsden, the Starks must have defeated and eradicated whichever House ruled these lands before. And this House must have been a major player alongside the Starks and Boltons, in the politics of the North. Probably the King of the White River, or King of the Bite, or some such title.

It might well be that the Boltons allied with this King for centuries, to match the power of the Starks in the earliest of days. And with whichever lord ruled the Karstark lands in the distant past.

I am most interested to learn more about this. Ran has already alluded to some "interesting Kings" that ran around the North in the Age of Heroes.

Another Northern king figure would be incredibly interesting. Allegedly the "First King" is buried at the Great Barrow in the Barrowlands (though legend also says it might have been a giant king). There's also Joramun and the Night's King; I wonder how much history has been revised and doctored over time.

Like, for example, there were kings at the Nightfort. Which presumably dates the Nightfort prior to the founding of the Watch and probably the wall. King Sherrit called down a curse on the Andals from the Nightfort, and the Rat Cook fed an Andal king's sons to him there. If Sherrit was a king, was the Nightfort his seat? And if it's his seat, it means that the Watch doesn't exist yet, and if he's calling down a curse on the Andals from this seat, then it means the Andal invasion precedes the founding of the Watch.

[Maia]

They might not have recognized Stark authority until this. History might term it a "rebellion," but they might have called themselves kings.

Or maybe the Greystarks were the ones rebelling and joined an enemy monarch in the process? Happened often enough iRL. But yea, I always read that quote of Theon's as evidence that Boltons were independant until then.

I am also not finding any information about who used to be petty kings in the North at the moment, apart from the Marsh King of the Neck.

But I did read somewhere on the forum that Umbers, Boltons, Dustins and Hornwoods (?!) all used to be kings in the past. It is not from any privileged worldbook leaks, though, since I haven't seen any on the topic. Maybe somebody has, though? Or, maybe, they were just ad-libbing? Anyway, sorry.

Free Northman - we really don't know if Starks were as central to everything back in the day as their propaganda insists ;). Or if history of Westeros in general goes as far back as everybody claims. Personally, I suspect that the first Azor Ahai lived during the Long Night...

I note, however, that according to Bran in AGoT, subjugation of the Neck supposedly happened "centuries before the conquest", rather than millenia (Chapter 66 according to the wiki). Nothing prevents a scenario where Starks and the Marsh King were allied against the Andals and that allowed them to throw back their armies. Maybe Dustins, too. Starks didn't have to be overlords of the whole North to accomplish what they did and it is possible that the lion's share of credit is attributed to them just because they became so very prominent later.

Butterbumps!:

Yes, IMHO the Others are riding the wights like skinchangers ride their animals. As to shape-change of the FM (and ancient Boltons?), I don't really see it as piloting the dead per se, but rather that they, rather than wargs et. al. are actually real shapechangers. People physically turning into wolves is a prejuduce, but turning into other people whose skin you have prepared in specific ways is clearly doable.

I am not sure that an element of envy or imitation needs to be involved either, it is just a different magical skill altogether.

[Game Of Thrones]

I doubt very much that Boltons were ever kings. Why wasnt that mentioned earlier in the novels? Seems like a kinda thing they would have been proud of/brag about.

And for those saying that Bolton vassals would give Starks the same problems as Boltons did...that could be mitigated by upjumping one of their vassals.

Seems to have worked fine for Targaryens when they replaced House Gardener with Tyrels.

Sure, they had dragons, but after dragons died out they didnt try to break free, did they? While controlling the most populated area of Westeros they could potentially raise a great army and give IT a run for their money

If Brackens, a pretty minor Riverlands House, were kings. Boltons are old as the Starks. Yeah, they were kings.

[Game Of Thrones]

In the early part of the Age of Heroes there were hundreds of First Man kingdoms spread across Westeros. Back in the day, all of the old Northern Houses were likely petty kings. Most likely you had at a minimum:

Stark Kings of Winter

Bolton Kings of Dread

Umber Giant Kings

Dustin Barrow Kings

Ryswell Rill Kings

Reed Marsh Kings

Maybe Kings of the Hornwood

Also during this time you had the Mountain Clans and Skagosi Chiefs.

I am pretty sure there were also some old Kings of the areas along the White Knife, currently occupied by the Manderlys. Most likely the Starks wiped them out with the help of some Mountain Clan Flints, and gave part of that territory to the Flints of Widow's Watch.

Over time, the Starks would have conquered all of these rival kings. The difference between the North and the Southron Kingdoms, was that the Starks appear to have completed their conquest of the entire North far earlier than any of the Southern Kings managed to unite their respective areas. We know this because by the time the Andals arrived, they faced the 100 kingdoms of the First Men, and yet the Starks seem to have ruled the entire North as their kingdom at the time, while the remaining 99 First Man Kings had to share the South.

For example, we know that the Neck was already under Stark control by the time the Andals tried to invade. And the Neck was one of the last areas brought into the Stark Realm. In fact, the Starks already established the Wolf's Den a generation before the Neck was brought into the realm.

And we know the Starks already had great influence at the Wall since long before the Andals arrived, signifying that their rule likely stretched all the way up to the Wall as well at this time.

So the Boltons likely were brought down last, but even they must have been long conquered by the time that the Greystarks joined them in rebellion more than 3000 years ago.

Incorrect. The Flints of WW are the oldest of the three Flint Houses. The Flints of FF are the youngest. The Mountain Flints just like to lie :cool4:

[Game Of Thrones]

If Bran the Builder built Storms End, then it places the Stark line before that. It's sort of weird you used a known figure of House Stark's building the Durrendon's ancestral seat to support the idea that the Starks are a newer House.

Allegedly House Stark became Kings of Winter 8k years ago, when Winterfell was built. Other Houses claim 10k years ago foundings, like the Daynes. But it doesn't look like any of these other kings held the consolidated power the Starks did for as long as they did.

Another Northern king figure would be incredibly interesting. Allegedly the "First King" is buried at the Great Barrow in the Barrowlands (though legend also says it might have been a giant king). There's also Joramun and the Night's King; I wonder how much history has been revised and doctored over time.

Like, for example, there were kings at the Nightfort. Which presumably dates the Nightfort prior to the founding of the Watch and probably the wall. King Sherrit called down a curse on the Andals from the Nightfort, and the Rat Cook fed an Andal king's sons to him there. If Sherrit was a king, was the Nightfort his seat? And if it's his seat, it means that the Watch doesn't exist yet, and if he's calling down a curse on the Andals from this seat, then it means the Andal invasion precedes the founding of the Watch.

Bran, the first Stark, built SE as a child. Durran married decades before that and hence the series of failed castles. The fact that a castle as large as SE could be built, along with the fact that he had enough manpower to build a bunch of smaller castles as well, indicates that Durran already controlled at least half of the Stormlands. 'Petty kings' probably can't build enormous castles, even with CotF.

[Ser Rayne Byrne]

Someone mentioned it already, but the Starks would never kill an heir, ending the family's bloodline, for his father's mistakes. Much like what Ned did with the Greyjoys, he spared the Boltons' lives on conditions, conditions that clearly came back to firmly bite them in the arse.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Someone mentioned it already, but the Starks would never kill an heir, ending the family's bloodline, for his father's mistakes. Much like what Ned did with the Greyjoys, he spared the Boltons' lives on conditions, conditions that clearly came back to firmly bite them in the arse.

The Old Stark Kings were not like Eddard. They were more like Rickard Karstark.

[Ser Greg of House House]

Someone mentioned it already, but the Starks would never kill an heir, ending the family's bloodline, for his father's mistakes. Much like what Ned did with the Greyjoys, he spared the Boltons' lives on conditions, conditions that clearly came back to firmly bite them in the arse.

There's no reason to believe all, or even most, of the Starks were as soft-hearted as Ned. Sure, there's no asshole Stark now and that helps make people like the whole family. But it would be incredibly silly if the Starks were all good and kind for thousands of years.

[butterbumps!]

Bran, the first Stark, built SE as a child. Durran married decades before that and hence the series of failed castles. The fact that a castle as large as SE could be built, along with the fact that he had enough manpower to build a bunch of smaller castles as well, indicates that Durran already controlled at least half of the Stormlands. 'Petty kings' probably can't build enormous castles, even with CotF.

Yes, I know what you were saying, but I thought it was funny that you were appealing to a known Stark to support your timeline.

I'm really unsure of how much of the timeline we can take at face value, or legends like Bran the Builder's alleged accomplishments to date things. I typically don't rely on the BtB legends, because there's reason to question how close in time the Watch, Wall and Winterfell were established. In particular, the founding of the Watch (he's responsible for creating the Gift) and the Wall seem like it might be far more recent than the founding of House Stark, or at least, more recent than the 8k timeline it's supposed to be placed on, with the Long Night falling at 8k years ago as well.

That is, I think something's muddled in there, so while I trust a lot of the broad strokes we're given, I'm not sure that relying on something so specific as "BtB built X, which means Y came before that" is definitive. And, I mean, the fact that the legends have BtB building Winterfell, the Wall and Storm's End seem incredibly implausible. You're saying how implausible it seems for a petty king to build a major castle, but what's kind of ridiculous is how much major architecture is being attributed to this figure in the first place.

But getting back to this, I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Are you trying to say that the Starks aren't a magical House, and/ or that they didn't use these magical abilities for political gain? That's what I was pointing out in the post you quoted-- that the Starks are a known magical family, and that they could use their powers for political gain. Like the way we see Jon do repeatedly, as well as how Robb managed to bypass the tooth with that path Grey Wind found, and so forth. I think it stands to reason that magical ability was used by the Starks centuries earlier when they were consolidating power.

To the examples I specifically used, well, no, none of these other ancient Houses seems to have held onto their consolidated power like the Starks had as kings for as long as the Starks did. And the Storm Kings hadn't ruled the Riverlands for all that long-- they defeated the River Kings only 600 years ago, holding them for approximately 300, until Harren took them away.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Yes, I know what you were saying, but I thought it was funny that you were appealing to a known Stark to support your timeline.

I'm really unsure of how much of the timeline we can take at face value, or legends like Bran the Builder's alleged accomplishments to date things. I typically don't rely on the BtB legends, because there's reason to question how close in time the Watch, Wall and Winterfell were established. In particular, the founding of the Watch (he's responsible for creating the Gift) and the Wall seem like it might be far more recent than the founding of House Stark, or at least, more recent than the 8k timeline it's supposed to be placed on, with the Long Night falling at 8k years ago as well.

That is, I think something's muddled in there, so while I trust a lot of the broad strokes we're given, I'm not sure that relying on something so specific as "BtB built X, which means Y came before that" is definitive. And, I mean, the fact that the legends have BtB building Winterfell, the Wall and Storm's End seem incredibly implausible. You're saying how implausible it seems for a petty king to build a major castle, but what's kind of ridiculous is how much major architecture is being attributed to this figure in the first place.

But getting back to this, I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Are you trying to say that the Starks aren't a magical House, and/ or that they didn't use these magical abilities for political gain? That's what I was pointing out in the post you quoted-- that the Starks are a known magical family, and that they could use their powers for political gain. Like the way we see Jon do repeatedly, as well as how Robb managed to bypass the tooth with that path Grey Wind found, and so forth.

To the examples I specifically used, well, no, none of these other ancient Houses seems to have held onto their consolidated power like the Starks had as kings for as long as the Starks did. And the Storm Kings hadn't ruled the Riverlands for all that long-- they defeated the River Kings only 600 years ago, holding them for approximately 300, until Harren took them away.

The Starks have undoubtedly ruled the North for longer than any of the other Kings have ruled the other 6 kingdoms.

It took the Andals to consolidate the 100 Southron First Men kingdoms into the 6 Southron Kingdoms we know today.

The Starks were ruling the North since before the Andals arrived.

Most likely we are looking at a timeline more or less as follows:

4000 years ago - Starks bring the Neck into the Kingdom and consolidate their rule over the entire North.

3000 years ago - The Andals arrive. The Arryns are the first Andal lords to complete a conquest of a First Man petty kingdom, that of the Griffin King.

2500 years ago. The Arryns continue to expand over the next few centuries until they rule the entire Vale.

2000 years ago - The Riverlands, Reach Westerlands and Stormlands are also united under their new Andal rulers. (The Riverlands are a bit vague as there were Riverkings, but I'm not sure if they were just petty kings or actual kings of the entire Riverlands.)

1000 years ago - Nymeria helps Mors Martell to unite Dorne under his rule

600 years ago - The last Riverkings are defeated by the Storm King

500 years ago - the Storm King is driven out of the Riverlands by the King of the Iron Isles

300 years ago - Aegon lands.

[The Fallen]

Someone mentioned it already, but the Starks would never kill an heir, ending the family's bloodline, for his father's mistakes. Much like what Ned did with the Greyjoys, he spared the Boltons' lives on conditions, conditions that clearly came back to firmly bite them in the arse.

I don't like when Roose's betrayal of Robb is discussed as if it was pre-ordained or inevitable. It took unique circumstances for Roose's betrayal of Robb to work. If Stannis wins the Battle of the Blackwater there is no betrayal. If Robb doesn't marry Jeyne Westerling there is no betrayal. If Theon doesn't capture Winterfell there is no betrayal.

It seems that Roose was using the continent-wide confusion to try and strengthen his position. And little things just kept happening that allowed him to take advantage of those situations. Culminating in the Red Wedding. But it wasn't because Roose wanted to pay back the Starks for subjugating the Boltons however long ago.

[The Fallen]

The Old Stark Kings were not like Eddard. They were more like Rickard Karstark.

There's no reason to believe all, or even most, of the Starks were as soft-hearted as Ned. Sure, there's no asshole Stark now and that helps make people like the whole family. But it would be incredibly silly if the Starks were all good and kind for thousands of years.

You mean Ned, he of the cold, grey eyes and frozen heart, was soft-hearted?

[butterbumps!]

Or maybe the Greystarks were the ones rebelling and joined an enemy monarch in the process? Happened often enough iRL. But yea, I always read that quote of Theon's as evidence that Boltons were independant until then.

I am also not finding any information about who used to be petty kings in the North at the moment, apart from the Marsh King of the Neck.

But I did read somewhere on the forum that Umbers, Boltons, Dustins and Hornwoods (?!) all used to be kings in the past. It is not from any privileged worldbook leaks, though, since I haven't seen any on the topic. Maybe somebody has, though? Or, maybe, they were just ad-libbing? Anyway, sorry.

Butterbumps!:

Yes, IMHO the Others are riding the wights like skinchangers ride their animals. As to shape-change of the FM (and ancient Boltons?), I don't really see it as piloting the dead per se, but rather that they, rather than wargs et. al. are actually real shapechangers. People physically turning into wolves is a prejuduce, but turning into other people whose skin you have prepared in specific ways is clearly doable.

I am not sure that an element of envy or imitation needs to be involved either, it is just a different magical skill altogether.

Oh, it's totally ok-- I just wanted to be sure I hadn't missed something. I completely agree that the other Houses-- and potentially more of them-- were once kings in their own right. It's just that, like Free Northman, I had the distinct impression that the Starks consolidated the vast majority of them much further back in time than the other consolidations we hear of south of the Neck. I think it's highly plausible that this consolidation occurred a very long time ago, but that the North may have been split such that the Boltons stood outside of it. These "rebellions" may well have actually been wars of conquest, resulting in the Starks annexing Bolton lands over time and raising loyal lords to maintain the borders. In fact, that seems highly plausible, and an excellent answer to "why they were allowed to remain" (as in, they were too powerful to be completely defeated). The Umbers sound rather ancient, so that annex probably took place pretty early on; then the Wolf's Den/ WH portion, and later the Karstarks, to finally surround the Dreadfort.

ETA: but you'd still wonder why the Starks didn't try making a deal with the Greystarks to be spared if they helped the Starks defeat the Boltons once and for all back in the day. I still think there's some questions there.

[theriveryeti]

Yes, I know what you were saying, but I thought it was funny that you were appealing to a known Stark to support your timeline.

I'm really unsure of how much of the timeline we can take at face value, or legends like Bran the Builder's alleged accomplishments to date things. I typically don't rely on the BtB legends, because there's reason to question how close in time the Watch, Wall and Winterfell were established. In particular, the founding of the Watch (he's responsible for creating the Gift) and the Wall seem like it might be far more recent than the founding of House Stark, or at least, more recent than the 8k timeline it's supposed to be placed on, with the Long Night falling at 8k years ago as well.

That is, I think something's muddled in there, so while I trust a lot of the broad strokes we're given, I'm not sure that relying on something so specific as "BtB built X, which means Y came before that" is definitive. And, I mean, the fact that the legends have BtB building Winterfell, the Wall and Storm's End seem incredibly implausible. You're saying how implausible it seems for a petty king to build a major castle, but what's kind of ridiculous is how much major architecture is being attributed to this figure in the first place.

But getting back to this, I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Are you trying to say that the Starks aren't a magical House, and/ or that they didn't use these magical abilities for political gain? That's what I was pointing out in the post you quoted-- that the Starks are a known magical family, and that they could use their powers for political gain. Like the way we see Jon do repeatedly, as well as how Robb managed to bypass the tooth with that path Grey Wind found, and so forth. I think it stands to reason that magical ability was used by the Starks centuries earlier when they were consolidating power.

To the examples I specifically used, well, no, none of these other ancient Houses seems to have held onto their consolidated power like the Starks had as kings for as long as the Starks did. And the Storm Kings hadn't ruled the Riverlands for all that long-- they defeated the River Kings only 600 years ago, holding them for approximately 300, until Harren took them away.

You are very learned :)

[Trigger Warning]

Someone mentioned it already, but the Starks would never kill an heir, ending the family's bloodline, for his father's mistakes. Much like what Ned did with the Greyjoys, he spared the Boltons' lives on conditions, conditions that clearly came back to firmly bite them in the arse.

As if the Starks haven't had cruel and bloodthirsty kings and family members in their history.

[Nittanian]

But I did read somewhere on the forum that Umbers, Boltons, Dustins and Hornwoods (?!) all used to be kings in the past. It is not from any privileged worldbook leaks, though, since I haven't seen any on the topic. Maybe somebody has, though? Or, maybe, they were just ad-libbing? Anyway, sorry.

The Dustin sigil includes a crown, so it is plausible the Dustins have royal history. The Great Barrow at Barrowton allegedly contains the grave of the First King or a King of the Giants, but it is unknown if it is connected with the Dustins.

I take the characters' discussion of Westerosi history with a grain of salt. In AFFC Sam tells Jon,

The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights.

In ADWD Hos Blackwood tells Jaime,

Only no one knows when the Andals crossed the narrow sea. The True History says four thousand years have passed since then, but some maesters claim that it was only two. Past a certain point, all the dates grow hazy and confused, and the clarity of history becomes the fog of legend.

So Spake Martin also indicates that Bran the Builder is legendary and his deeds should not necessarily be taken as fact (The Wall, ConJose).