For five years I’ve held to a roughly historic premillennial position. It is the most consistent and common-sense reading of Rev. 19-20, and OT promise-language. I’ve always had some doubts, though. The multiple resurrections seems to undo some aspects of soteriology and is hard to square with the Confession. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it is worth noting.
What interests me about historicism is that it tries to make sense of history as it happens. Just thinking out loud.