Absence of all-pervasive state control does not automatically lead to freedom, but it is a prerequisite.

I use "the state" as a generalization. A more precise term would be "powerful centralized authority." A Czar, Fueher, or Emperor fits this niche just as neatly as a Communist Party does. Tyranny is when this authority controls almost everything you do. The main point of the original article was that an enormous freedom of action was possible back then that did not require kneeling before authority for permission at every possible turn. Our country is going in the wrong direction on this front.

My theory is that centralized authority needed the capabilities of the nineteenth and twentieth century to become as all-pervasive and abusive as it did. I suspect most peasants in ancient times lived their lives largely free of day-to-day interference from the higher levels of authority, not because they were in a free society but because it wasn't feasible for a central authority to effectively run every damn thing everyone did. They dealt with dukes, warlords, and local leaders to some extent, and that sucked a lot, but it's not the same.

We were introduced to high-tech dictatorship last century. It wasn't pretty. Orwell wrote about that, too.