WI Crusaders and Byzantines successfully invade Egypt in 1169?

In autumn of 1169 Emperor Manuel I sent a joint expedition with King Amalric I to Egypt: a Byzantine army and a naval force of 20 large warships, 150 galleys, and 60 transports, under the command of the Megas Dux Andronikos Kontostephanos joined forces with Amalric at Ascalon.
The joined forces of Manuel and Amalric laid siege to Damietta on October 27, 1169, but the siege was unsuccessful due to the failure of the Crusaders and the Byzantines to co-operate fully. According to Byzantine forces, Amalric, not wanting to share the profits of victory, dragged out the operation until the emperor's men ran short of provisions and were particularly affected by famine; Amalric then launched an assault, which he promptly aborted by negotiating a truce with the defenders. On the other hand, William of Tyre remarked that the Greeks were not entirely blameless. Whatever the truth of the allegations of both sides, when the rains came, both the Latin army and the Byzantine fleet returned home, although half of the Byzantine fleet was lost in a sudden storm.
WI Byzantines and Amalric could cooperate better and the invasion of Egypt was successfull? And if it is succesfull would they share the territorial gains or they would fight for Egypt's control? How is this altering History? Any thoughts?
 
The Wiki [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damietta ]

A Defeat for Salidin
Slightly longer for the Crusader kingdoms

Cusaders kicked out in the end
Same O Same O in the end.

A defeat for Saladin during his rise would be devastating for Egypt... Saladin would have retreated to Syria or Libya unable to unite Egypta and Syria against the Crusaders... Had the Byzantines control Alexandria and the grain productive area while Crusaders take the rest gives to both of them a huge advantage to deal with Syria once and for all...
 
If Egypt falls, there is no reason to believe the Crusader Kings would.

In OTL Kingdom of Jerusalem collapsed because Saladin managed to unite Egypt and Syria against them (plus Western powers had abandoned Crusaders too)
Now with Crusaders in control of Egypt Western powers would thought again of supporting Jerusalem... I see a Crusade once more soon enough aiming to capture the rest of Syria (Aleppo, Damascus etc.) unless Byzantines get there first...
 
The Eastern Romans have their hands full fighting Hungary and the Turks at the time. Besides, they want Anatolia back before they would go after Syria, I think.
 
The Eastern Romans have their hands full fighting Hungary and the Turks at the time. Besides, they want Anatolia back before they would go after Syria, I think.

Real troubles with Hungary started way after 1172 when King Stephen died childless and Prince Bela claimed the Throne... So Manuel I had 3+ years on his disposal to deal effectively with Syria if Egypt was secured and divided between Byzantines and Crusaders...
A strong and rich Empire would have had better results in the battle of Myriokephalon roughly 7 years later...
 
The Eastern Romans have their hands full fighting Hungary and the Turks at the time. Besides, they want Anatolia back before they would go after Syria, I think.

Manuel was not having too much success against the Turks in Anatolia, which is why he was willing to ally with Jerusalem and take a crack at Egypt.

The general idea (I think) was that any gains made in Egypt were going to produce money, which could then be used to finance renewed campaigns in Anatolia. Furthermore, Egypt was an easy target, since it was beset by a series of civil conflicts that centered around the collapsing Fatimid Caliphate.

Byzantine involvement also probably had a hint of lord and vassal (Constantinople and Jerusalem) about it, since Amalric was following what had essentially been Baldwin III's policy. The Latins in Jerusalem had figured out that the only major power who cared about their success or failure for strategic reasons was the Byzantine Empire, and had begun a policy of alliance with the Empire. Antioch had been convincingly lost to the Empire as Constantinople's vassal, and the Byzantine alliance was clearly important in keeping Nur al-Din's Syria from attempting to deliver the killing blow.
 
I agree Mathais... If Manuel gets to control Egypt and its grain it has a vast resources stronghold capable of financing his campaigns in Anatolia...
 
I hate to post on a long dormant thread, but I'm working this idea into my new AIMA timeline. I'm going to have Manuel focus upon Anatolia in his reign (with breaks for wars with Hungary of course, as happened OTL) while allying with Jerusalem. Manuel will a son by Bertha of Sulzbach christened Theodore I Komnenos, who, in 1181 will succeed him at the age of 20-25. Andronicus will not seize the throne, and good ole Theo will be a throwback to John II, focusing upon conquering Anatolia and expanding Byzantine authority into Antioch by 1204.

Then (post 1204), aided by the Crusaders, a stronger Byzantium with territorial control up to Antioch will invade Egypt, a clash between the Christian allies will be inevitable though, but perhaps with a stronger Byzantium a "later" invasion of Egypt could work.
 
Sassanid, you should have started a new thread with a link to this one. Necros are not generally approved on this board. Just a friendly heads-up to someone who looks to be a new Poster.
 
Top