Indeed, that has been the aim of some, and particularly of the outspoken. But there is also a level on which the purpose of these disciplines has been to comprehend. The language of hegemony is the language of dominance, of power. There can only be conquest or defeat. If economics can only be perceived as power, there can be no communication with economists.
Communication requires listening as well as speaking.
To listen would be to lose, to understand would be to have been manipulated. And to find areas of agreement, would be capitulation and willing co-optation. The last direct contact historians had with economists came nearly a century ago, before the popularization in economics of the concepts and methodology represented by Marshallean marginalist analysis of constrained maximization. Historians rely on that self-created body of theories both to explain economic factors in history and to defend the absence of information and ideas from the mainstream economics literature. Ironically, one of the major reasons historians rejected Marshallean economics has also proved a serious impediment to the study of economic causation in history.