When you're judging the character of games, whether they seem real or composed for example, one's strength indeed makes a difference. Comparing the natures of games played centuries apart would require some chess strength too, it seems to me, to make any meaningful insights unless the proposition is quite simplistic.
There shouldn't be any confusion.
It's a historians job to determine this. He could do that without even knowing the rules of chess.
He'd then have to be referring to the opinion of others with chess expertise and not pretending to any such insights on his own. Ergo, not making the comparison himself.

And a low rated player could quote the historian.
So, rating is irrelevant in this matter.