This comment critically examines the reinterpretation of the eruptive history of Vulcano Island recently proposed by Lucchi et al. (2025), which relies primarily on historical documentary sources. The integration of historical analysis represents a valuable contribution to volcanological reconstructions. However, some of the interpretations proposed by the authors appear difficult to reconcile with the full range of geological, stratigraphic, paleomagnetic, and radiometric evidence currently available. In particular, the attribution of the Vulcanello lava platform to Roman times differs from established tephrostratigraphic relationships and paleomagnetic datasets, which consistently indicate a Medieval age (ca. 900–1250 CE). Similarly, the proposed reassignment of the Breccia di Commenda eruption to 1444 CE conflicts with independent stratigraphic and paleomagnetic constraints indicating a thirteenth-century event. Furthermore, the interpretation of the nineteenth-century explosive activity as Vulcanian rather than phreatic may be reconsidered based on eyewitness descriptions and on the characteristics of the erupted materials, both indicating the absence of juvenile magma. These differences in interpretation highlight the importance of adopting a multidisciplinary approach in the reconstruction of volcanic activity. Reliable eruptive histories and volcanic hazard assessments are most effectively achieved through the integration of stratigraphy, geochronology, paleomagnetism, petrology and historical documentation. Within this framework, the methodological approach adopted in previous studies on Vulcano Island remains well supported by the currently available data.