I sorry to say it, but this does not look like it was done by someone who takes pride in his work. I think you took a completely wrong approach to that style.
If you want to make a map as if inhabitants of your world and time had made it, you should consider some things...
What would they have considered important to place on their map?
How would they have done that?
Why would they have done it in that way?
Find yourself some reference material from our world and look how the cartographers of the olden days made their maps. I found http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ca...y_century_made to be very helpful... or, if you want to look at a map that is not "terribly accurate" (in a geographic way), look at the Tabula Peutingeriana.
Be careful with brushes! They might be useful for larger areas of repeating patterns, but too much of them, and too little variety does not fit the style you aspire. What do you think your cartographers used... potato print?
Especially the houses you used for your cities look horrible here. They can be used in smaller, regional maps as in the tutorial you used... but even there I think they don't look good.
For a continental map like yours, look for a different style. Browse through the historical references, the maps posted here... perhaps even (shameless self-advertisment) my own Elmsriggen Map.
So what would the cartographers of Forton City have drawn?
How does your continent look? Is it really simply blob-shaped? Are there bays or peninsulas? Recognizable features that break up the regularity of the coast? A cartography guild would know, wouldn't they?
What is important for the cartographers? What do they focus on? Settlements? Means of travel? Political entities? Geologial features? Rivers?
After you have answered these questions, you should have a basic idea of what to draw.
Next you have to consider: how would the cartographers have drawn that? What materials did they use? Which techniques? Which styles?
And now how can I copy that with my software? And what should I not do? For example: the labels that go through your map images - mountains, trees, borders. How and why would my cartographers have done that... or what would they have done instead?
There are quite a number of specific points I would adress in the current version of your map, but I think the general critique was enough to give you something to think about. I hope I wasn't too harsh.