fist-
I wasn't comparing child rape and molestation. I said marriage and there are plenty of cases of a girl under 18 having sex with a man over 18, perfectly willingly, and the man getting in trouble for it. I don't advocate breaking the law but my comparison was of willing consensual relations. But then again considering most marriages of the time period were arranged with little if any consent of the girl as young as twelve perhaps it is fairer to say willing teenagers of today have more of a choice then teen girls married off.
As to men marrying young to it depended on class, status, etc. It was not uncommon among the higher edges of society for a man in his thirty's or even forties to marry a girl in her teens, and quite possibly even her young teens. Fathers would sometimes even make their son wait until he had a solid footing in life so that he could command a better wife (and dowry) for his son. Even in the American colonies a girl of 15 or 16 could easily marry a man in his mid 20's.
Marriages among the nobility and upper classes in history have often been far from anything related to love and much more often had more to do with politics, power moves, and money. Daughters in some cultures were seen much as property to advance their fathers position through marriage. Need to get that business partnership? Cement it by marrying your daughter to him or his son. Alliance between countries or factions? Marry off a high born girl to a prince or king or noble. Marriage for love was almost exclusively the domain of the peasants and a fairly modern notion among other classes.
"Almost every man" owned slaves? Not even close. Even so, not all slavery was as bad as that of the transatlantic slave trade of modern times.
You are partially right. Poor people would be unlikely to own slaves and since most were poor I suppose I was off the mark in saying almost every man. However, slavery was widely accepted as the way of the world up until recent times, and even after slavery was outlawed in many places it took much longer for the practice of indentured servitude to follow suit. You are however wrong in that not all slavery was as bad as the more modern slavery in America, that simply isn't true. Through history domestic slaves were treated well. Domestic slaves can be defined as household or personal slaves- cooks, secretaries, etc. If you study strictly household slaves in America they were treated pretty well to and getting into the masters house was something many slaves would have tried for. On the other hand through all of history labor slaves were never treated well. Regardless of if they worked fields, mines, quarries, etc. They always had a tough time of it, if you were a Roman slave and sent to work the mines you had a life expectancy of about three months. Slavery was never pretty and the rift and treatment of domestic and labor slaves was always as it was. The reason why it seems so different is that our view of slaves in the ancient world, such as Rome and Greece, was that of the domestic slave. And out view of the more modern (pre-civil war America) slave is that of the labor slave, even though there were plenty of domestic slaves as well.
I could be wrong on this point, but I'm not sure that killing a man in a duel would be murder, or that killing a man for an insult was ever acceptable in most cultures. But I am sure the modern American culture I live in is barbarous in many ways.
Culture varied but in many without honor you were nothing, and even in cultures where that wasn't the case dueling was perfectly acceptable. In France and much of Europe right until a few hundred years ago a duel was perfectly legal and even had rules. It varied but the standard rules were basically an insult was committed, a challenge issued, a middle man for each man was chosen, and these middle men decided any terms on behalf of the combatants, and the duel took place a minimum of three days later so that they had a chance to cool down in the event of second thoughts.
In other cultures it worked differently. The Vikings (and other barbarian tribes in general) held personal honor very high and had their own system for duels. If two men were going to fight over an insult each man got three shield, if the shield was broken fighting stopped so the man could get his next shield, and depending on terms the fight would go until the three shields wore broken or until one man was dead. There were several variations but that is it in basic. You can see what is actually a pretty fair example of this in the movie The 13th Warrior.
The Sarmatians (earlier inhabitants of Russian steps, similar to the Huns but a different people entirely) would fight duels from horseback and if a scepter holder (basically a nobleman who commanded others) DIDN'T avenge an insult by fighting his reputation was soiled and he had a good chance of loosing the confidence of most of his men. This way of thinking was not uncommon either in the ancient or medieval pagan world. Today what stained your pride at one time could cost you a lot if you let it go.
Through much of history in many cultures personal honor was something you did not insult unless you wanted to fight the man, possibly to the death.
Killing a man in cold blood was not acceptable and was indeed murder, but a formal witnessed duel was perfectly acceptable to the majority of cultures through history.
