North America is in there too. You can clearly make out the gulf of mexico, the floridian peninsula, and major features along the eastern US coast all the way up to Canada. It's imperfect to be sure, but considering that it was drawn in 1562 that is to be expected.
Funny how your depiction of the Spaniard's Novo Mundo doesn't seem to include places like California or even Western Mexico (lol).
What else do you expect from a map from 1562? At that point they had only known of the entire western hemisphere's existence for 70 years and certainly had not explored it in full.
On that map NYC would be located just right of center, along the same line of meridian those letters I O N appear on, and there's a whole lot of territory mapped to the north and to the east.
And even more territory mapped to the south and southwest. Considering that the eastern third of that map is the Atlantic ocean, NYC is still located on the northeastern end of the continent and, excluding the canadian colonies, the northeastern extreme of the american ones.
More pretzel logic from the master bender himself. I'm sure there are an infinite number of historical maps on which New York doesn't appear. Which means...nothing.
That's an extremely unusual argument for someone of your position to make. After all, did you not just randomly pick out that 1710 map, notice that NYC was near the center of it, and upon that fact alone conclude it was in the middle of what the Europeans viewed as the "new world"
Yes, I'm glad you are finally acknowledging the obvious, but I have never called New Orleans a 'two block trading post' and you know it.
You certainly implied as much. You have repeatedly claimed that there was next to nothing there for decades after its founding and have also suggested that the city was no more than a few blocks even a century later. Yet by 40 years past its founding it already contained several blocks of structure, which is far more than the farmland that encircled NYC at a similar stage in its development.
Farms and individual houses extending away from the city center (or fort) would indicate a thriving population center
There are little towns all over the middle of nowhere in states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Nebraska today. Most if not all of them have a couple individual houses on their outskirts plus a bunch of farms around them. Are they thriving population centers too?
Maybe if that map was done with a bit more scale, we could actually see just how extensive the little city of New Amsterdam really was in 1639! Click on the zoomed out version at the LoC website. The farmhouses are individually numbered and identified for the whole NYC region. There was virtually no city there beyond a fort and a few houses at the tip of manhattan island. Everything else was farmland.
Reduced to mindless name calling again?
So identifying you as a yankee or yankee sympathizer is now a form of namecalling? How odd.
I'd expect a Spanish map of the New World drawn in 1562 to include Western Mexico and California, otherwise its not representative, is it?
After all, did you not just randomly pick out that 1710 map, notice that NYC was near the center of it, and upon that fact alone conclude it was in the middle of what the Europeans viewed as the "new world"
No, I chose that map because it was (a) close to the founding date of New Orleans and therefore representative of how Europe viewed the New world at that time, (b) a collaborative effort by both French and English cartographers, and as such could be viewed as having less bias (c) it was drawn to scale and includes all of the North America that hade been explored, including Western Mexico and California.
If New York appears to be in the center of that (drawn to scale, by collaborative effort, during a relavant time period) map, then maybe thats because it was. One thing is for sure however, at that time New York was not on the extreme northeast fringe of the continent. To claim otherwise, as you have is absurd.
You have repeatedly claimed that there was next to nothing there for decades after its founding and have also suggested that the city was no more than a few blocks even a century later.
On the contrary, I posted an 1801 map of the city of New Orleans that clearly shows its size and shape about the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The fact that you have to resort to such fabrications demonstrates only the weakness of your argument.