Victorians and earlier didn't wear pants. I suppose the wealthy didn't have to do much and didn't need to be very active. Poorer women would have been under nourished and constantly pregnant so wouldn't have had the problem.
Even hundreds of years ago girls would have started periods by the age of 16 I expect
The average age for starting periods in Victorian times was 14 for lower classes and 13 for upper classes owing to the differences in nutrition.
Going way back into history, the Romans used pads made from wool and the Ancient Egyptians had tampons made from papyrus that had been softened and then woven around a stick. Not sure how effective either would have been.
In the days when rags were used, for example the 1800s, they would have been pinned front and back to the underskirt that was worn closest to the skin, sort of like a hammock for your fanny. The underskirts themselves would have helped absorb any leakage from the rags with several layers of skirts of varying fabrics being worn as standard.
Some women would have menstruated less frequently than we do now due to differences in nutrition, untreated/unrecognised gynaecological problems, breastfeeding, and pregnancy although it is a myth to think that women were constantly pregnant. At various points in history it was considered unseemly to constantly be pregnant as it was a sign of not being able to control ones base urges. In 1830 the average family size was six children but by 1900 this had dropped to 3.5 children.