Precisely. That's why he cut it off in 1095.
There's nothing wrong with a list of dates but it doesn't tell you much about history.
But if you look at it again, he does include the dates in the rise of the Seljuk Turks, which is why Crusades happened.
And he does mention 1092 and the Seljuks fighting among themselves, which allowed the Crusaders some degree of success. But he doesn't mention that Crusaders didn't turn the land that they did capture back over to Byzantium. But he doesn't give the dates of Saladin uniting all the Turks and the Fatimids to drive the Crusaders out.
Nor does he give the dates of al Ghazali who set forth the idea that Aristotle, Plato, and other western philosophers were enemies of Islam.
Nothing in his list about the Mongols and Ottoman Dynasty or the fall of Constantinople.
The area that the Crusaders were focused on, Jerusalem and its surroundings, hadn't "belonged" to the Eastern Roman Empire for closing on 500 years.
The Byzantines had a much better case for some of the other territories, such as Antioch, the Crusaders glommed onto.
The Crusaders had sworn to return conquered land to Alexis, but rightly or wrongly they believed they were absolved from that obligation because Alexis didn't support them as he'd sworn to do, abandoning them to what he thought would be defeat at Antioch.