WI Manuel I conquers Fatimid Egypt?

In 1169, Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos made an alliance with King Amalric I of Jerusalem to attack and conquer Egypt. The Fatimid Caliphate had been weakened and reduced to roughly modern-day Egypt I believe. Manuel wanted Egypt for it grain and wealth, and to keep it out of Nur ad-Din's hands.

IOTL the invasion failed due to a lack of cooperation between the Crusaders and Byzantines. But, if they had cooperated and the invasion been successful, what effects would there be?

* How much Fatimid territory would the Byzantines be willing to give up to the Crusaders? I imagine they would want to keep important areas like Cairo, Alexandria and Damietta.

* How would a successful invasion affect Nur ad-Din's plans? Would he still have sent Shirkuh to invade anyway?

* How long would Byzantine and Crusader rule have lasted in former Fatimid territories? Would the conquest only give Nur ad-Din more justification for his actions?

I'm thinking up another ATL scenario where the invasion succeeds, Myriokephalon turns out better for Manuel (he doesn't lose like he did OTL but the victory isn't crushing) and Manuel establishes a stronger Komnenian dynasty which seeks a policy of ruling over the Balkans, Anatolia and Egypt while keeping the Crusader States and Armenian Cilicia around as vassals - or at least until they can annex them peacefully.

It's probably just fanwank on my part though...
 
In 1169, Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos made an alliance with King Amalric I of Jerusalem to attack and conquer Egypt. The Fatimid Caliphate had been weakened and reduced to roughly modern-day Egypt I believe. Manuel wanted Egypt for it grain and wealth, and to keep it out of Nur ad-Din's hands.

IOTL the invasion failed due to a lack of cooperation between the Crusaders and Byzantines. But, if they had cooperated and the invasion been successful, what effects would there be?

* How much Fatimid territory would the Byzantines be willing to give up to the Crusaders? I imagine they would want to keep important areas like Cairo, Alexandria and Damietta.

* How would a successful invasion affect Nur ad-Din's plans? Would he still have sent Shirkuh to invade anyway?

* How long would Byzantine and Crusader rule have lasted in former Fatimid territories? Would the conquest only give Nur ad-Din more justification for his actions?

I'm thinking up another ATL scenario where the invasion succeeds, Myriokephalon turns out better for Manuel (he doesn't lose like he did OTL but the victory isn't crushing) and Manuel establishes a stronger Komnenian dynasty which seeks a policy of ruling over the Balkans, Anatolia and Egypt while keeping the Crusader States and Armenian Cilicia around as vassals - or at least until they can annex them peacefully.

It's probably just fanwank on my part though...

The Egyptian Orthodox Church?
 
This idea sounds cracked. Even supposing they conquer it, they didn't make a plan to divide it? What do the Byzantines get out of this?
 
Smells like Amalric is in a supreme bargaining position with literally no chance for Manuel to gleam anything. Why would he? A distraction from the wars with the Turks and a chance for tension with the Crusaders, as well as a sudden need to maintain a proper navy which can protect the route to Egypt and at the same time protect Byzantium itself would be an entirely negative proposition.
 
This is entirely against the greater byzantine interests, what they need right now isn't another fringe province thats too rebellious for its own good, its a lasting victory over the Turks and a focusing of economic and military capital on Anatolian strength. Trying to conquer Egypt makes Manuels OTL problem even worse (he had dreams way bigger than anything he could actually manage and had possibly the worst case of ADD in byzantine history), Egypt is simply a burden on the Empire if it is reconquered at this point without greater military basis in Anatolia (the empires real heartland at this point) and possibly a restoration to their control over antioch.
 
Top