The point is, you're comparing The Three Great Continents to Africa and Eurasia. When it's just Eurasia. I would grant that Ul'dah (rather, Belah'dia) has some Egyptian influence, but that's mostly on an Alexander the Great's conquests (after all, the whole Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt was Greek). Actual Ul'Dah has Moroccan influence, which again, yes, African, but NORTHERN Africa; as in, Right on the other side of Gibraltar strait from Spain.
If you're trying to say that Eorzea = Africa (as far as landmasses go), it's dead wrong. For comparison's sake, this is what I mean with the Ecuador Line.
The weather patterns don't add up. For the comparison to make sense, Limsa is too far North to be Madagascar, Gridania is nowhere NEAR the climate and culture of Sudan, and Ul'dah is not at all like Congo (actually, even further South, Zambia or Zimbawe). And it would also put Coerthas in Morocco... even pre-Calamity, Coerthan culture and weather where much more Scandinavian than Moroccan. It's NOT where Africa would be, Eorzea is TOO FAR NORTH. THAT'S why Meracydia is relevant (as far as we know): it's further South, and mostly unexplored, with some tribes trading with Eorzea's alchemists for materials; the fact that we haven't seen it in-game is besides the point.
And Eorzea doesn't serve a similar purpose to Africa, either. If anything, 1.0 to 2.0 is based on the Greco-Persian Wars, although the Garlean Empire is based on Ancient Rome instead of the First Persian Empire. And it follows much more closely with said wars (A bunch of scattered City-States joining together to drive back an invading Imperial force, which led to the founding of the Delian League, i.e. a treaty between the Greek City States against Persia) than the conquests of Africa. That's why I said I'll grant Ul'dah as being part of NORTHERN Africa, but it's ignoring the REST of the Cultures there; especially as Northern Africa has a lot more influence from the Middle East, Greece, and Rome (they were, after all, their direct neighbors).