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?