In my opinion.. The grandpa has emphasize that their doing is wrong as it has gotten someone hurt.. It is not she could have seriously gotten hurt when she already have gotten seriously hurt which could've led to a concussion..
He explains his reason well enough as he pointed out balzac's wrongs and asteliu's wrong.. As he also mention asteliu is being punished for merely being a bystander and did not properly stop balzac from committing violence.. He only told him to stop yet didnt even try to take the sword away.. And he pointed that he is not to learn swordmanship until he learn the true meaning of learning the practice by heart as he already gave the answer which is to protect the weak..
They are punished for their current crimes not future crimes.. They were not punished for embezzling the lombardy fortune with gamblings, women etc.. They are punished for hurting someone.. Difference is the grandpa actually take action in this timeline compared to the previous.. Because no matter if firentia is useful to the lombardy or not, she should've been protected once found mistreated or at least thought self value n that it is ok to defend herself as in previous timeline she was only but a child.. N the only reason she can retaliate now is because she is an adult inside..
*taught
Well the reason why I don't think he was as clear is that Balzac still clearly felt like taking revenge until the twins came in.
I know they aren't being punished for their future crimes, I only mentioned that because in reincarnation/time reverse manga, sometimes the reader may forget that the person hasn't actually done anything, especially since they are still kids in this manga.
I'm just viewing this from a more modern parenting perspective, which doesn't take into account the classism among relatives/people, wherein Balzac doesn't understand his punishment bc he feels superior. Which is why I said its 'unrealistic' bc in a modern setting there would (hopefully) not be this power dynamic amongst children.
I understand the story, I just couldn't help but view or wonder about it from a modern perspective.
I know its not necessarily 'realistic' or common in these stories, but I just wish people would explain their decisions.
Like, clearly it was favoritism, but also she could have seriously gotten hurt and I feel like it should've been emphasized more when dueling out their punishment?
You could argue that the head doesn't have to explain his actions/decisions, buts its just a thought.
I guess its to set up the overall plot for if/when Balzac does do something bad in the end, but right now in time, except for Firentia, they are just children who haven't actually done anything.
im just thinking in modern terms..