I think you might be missing the point. The problem with medieval and Roman societies was that property rights were restricted to a ruling elite, and withheld from the people in general. Using these societies as an example only goes to further prove that property rights are tied in with freedom in general.

Early philosophers of liberty also recognized this. Note the early draft of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in the reference below (from this web page):

We find this more substantive notion of natural rights in the Second Treatise of Government (1690) by British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Locke argues that God created people free and equal in the state of nature and that, in this condition, no one is naturally sovereign over anyone else. In view of this natural equality, Locke maintains that it is a law of nature that no one should harm another person's life, health, liberty or possessions:



The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions



-[Second Treatise of Government, 2:6]



These, then, are our foundational and God-given natural rights. Locke emphasizes that the state of nature is not necessarily a state of war. A state of war is declared only when someone violates our rights. In that case, the offender deserves to be punished, and even killed. We remedy conflicts in the state of nature by making contracts with each other to create a civil society. This government is authorized to judge us and to defend our natural rights. However, these governments may be dissolved if they violate laws and threaten the life, liberty and property of the individual. Locke devotes
particular attention to our right to possessions. We acquire property by mixing our labor with something that is held in common.

Locke's view of natural rights inspired 18th century political reformers such as Thomas Jefferson, which we see in the opening of the "Declaration of Independence":

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson follows Locke more closely by listing our natural rights as those of life, liberty and property. However, Jefferson later considered property to be only a means to happiness, he replaced "property" with "happiness." We also see Locke's influence in Emmanuel Sieyès' 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man" adopted by the French assembly:

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights … [and the ] aim of all political association is the conservation of the natural and imperscriptable rights of man … [including] liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

Because of political documents such as these, the notion of natural rights became deeply imbedded in modern moral vocabulary. 18th century political documents and discussions of rights focused principally on a small set of foundational rights, such as life, liberty, and happiness. From these, we were to deduce more specific rights. This strategy is the direct result of natural law theories that articulated a few very general principles of natural law, and stipulated that more specific rules should be deduced from these.