Daniel was about that period, Revelation is about matters "at hand in the 1st century" -- about the fall of Jerusalem and the persecutions of Nero.
Don't mix up these -- as I said in post 1 Note -- many folks mistakenly mix up Revelation with Daniel with the writings of Paul. Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in Antiochus IV and his desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of the Jewish Kingdom by the Maccabees, while Paul's is about the future.
Revelation is purely about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is complete.
Have you ever read the book of Jeremiah? Jeremiah was told to tell the House of Judah they were going into captivity to the king of Babylon, and the 'temple' would be destroyed. Regardless of who fought when and where. AND God told Daniel to go his way, that the words he penned were for the end of this age. Even Christ Himself quotes Daniel when listing the signs that would be taking place 'trumpeting' the count down to His return.
Revelation was written after 70 AD so no way no how is it talking about what Titus did. AND it is far from being completed. Paul knew the so called OLD better than any of the other New Testament writers, which is why he had the credibility to say what happened to them was recorded in the OLD was and is our script as to what would be replayed.
Before one word of the New Testament got put on animal skins or plant material Christ said But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (Mark 13:23) Christ quoted time and again the prophets making their writings one and the same as the gospel.
Daniel was in Babylon when the House of Judah was sent into captivity. And it was the king of Babylon that sacked Jerusalem. BUT king Neb converted and even wrote a portion of Daniel after he grazed on green grass for a period of time. I think it is man's traditions that for self serving purposes elevates Antiochus IV to be the entity that Daniel is describing.