[@Macro][@DeadBeatWalking] There isn't any landmass on this planet that becomes cold as you move south. Cold, as you all know, has a different meaning than 'colder'. 39°C is not cold, but it is colder than 40°C. Similarly, Melbourne is not a cold city, but it is colder than, say, Darwin. Australia becomes colder as you move south—it does not become cold.

As for South America: local temperature variation in Chile and Argentina has a lot less to do with latitude than it does with elevation. Unless the south of Ardacia also happens to be very mountainous, it isn't going to satisfy the "swarthy snow-houses" trope. Punta Arenas, the southern-most city in Chile (and also the world), has only ever gotten as cold as -14.2°C, and the average low in the city's coldest month, July, is -1.1°C. That record low is a single degree lower than the record low of Las Vegas, and that average low is only just barely cold enough for snow to stay on the ground one month out of the year. Not exactly Winterfell.

We should have the north be the cold region for the same reason that we should have north equate to the top of the map rather than the bottom. That is what people are used to, and you seem to have gone against the grain for no practical reason. EDIT: I understand how this could make sense. Ardacia is further south on our fantasy world than South America is on Earth. However, I would still say that the weirdness caused by that really isn't worth the gimmick value.