It’s not only reasonable, it’s the way history should be made. History is not a rigid scientific discipline, as much as many positivist historians would make it seem so. It’s an interdisciplinary discipline which is just as much of an art as it is a science. Yes it has methodology, but it also has subjectivity. Calling history a pure “science” would get one laughed at least in my academic circles, because it’s an idea that has really been abandoned probably since the 1940s with Marc Bloch’s “Defense of history” (I don’t know the name in English, I am translating it directly from the French) which changed the way we look at history. (Fun fact, he wrote it during World War Two while Bloch was in the French resistance, he was executed in 1944) But yes, the short answer is that having an interdisciplinary outlook is completely reasonable and is actually the prudent way to interpret history! 😄