Maybe the word "eisegetical" is confusing. What I meant is bad exegesis. In some sense, any interpretation that identifies fulfillment is eisegetical, even messianic prophecies.
Perhaps. We'd still need to see an actual argument from the text (not from church history). I grant your other point.
What do you think caused 1,700 years of interpreters all got it wrong? This is no refutation of you're view but you should at least be able to explain why everyone misunderstood.
I dispute your claim. It is certainly not the case that 1,700 years of church history got it wrong on this point. Some early interpreters employed a small and very limited historicist schema on some parts of Daniel. Even then, it's not clear. You can sort of see it in Hippolytus and Methodius. In the first full length commentary on Revelation by Andrew of Caesarea, you really don't see a historicist framework.
Notes on Andrew of Caesarea
St Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary on the Apocalypse is the first substantial Eastern reflection on the Apocalypse as a whole. Earlier saints like Methodios and Cyril of Jerusalem gave point…
By the time you get to Augustine you don't see historicist at all. I could be wrong, but City of God seems quite clear.
This is anecdotal, but Irenaeus of Lyons seems to be a historicist premillennial. He does not address what in my opinion is the weakest point of historicism though. The reason for this would be the fact that the Roman empire was still around so the problem didn't happen yet. Ok, rabbit trail closed. Back to the main question.
Historicist is shifting in meaning. The way Irenaeus uses historicist is not the way the post-Reformation thinkers used it. In terms of the Roman Empire, Irenaeus would have seen the Antichrist as a political leader, not a religious one. That actually makes sense. The Pope fits the bill as the False Prophet, but not the Beast from the Sea.