Dear Author,

Please, revise your text according to the reviewers' suggestions and your responses, with consideration on the following points:

1) As the Referees suggested, it would be useful to provide a short overview of European case studies relevant to compare your results with. In addition, you could make a bit more detailed comparison (with more compared cases cited; probably in the Discussion section), while comparing your results to those (e.g. for flood rich periods) of some other areas in Europe. Beyond the publications either already included in the manuscript or suggested by the reviewers, due to its extensive European overview section, I would also recommend to have a look at the following publication: Schmocker-Fackel, P. and Naef, F.: Changes in flood frequencies in Switzerland since 1500, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc., 14, 1581–1594, 2010.

2) As Referee No. 1 suggested, consider to include more analysis in the Results (and in the Discussion) chapter by applying the results provided in your Figures and your highly valuable Appendices.

3) As suggested by two referees, please, include an explanation concerning the character (and volumen) of increase of documentary data after 1520.

4) Regarding the harvest failure question, apart from the reviewers' comments, I would also suggest to mention why the problem of harvest failure was mentioned in this chapter (and the paper) in relation to heavy rainfall events and/or floods? Is it based on modern parallels, or are there any publications suggesting (or presuming) any type of historical relationship between these events? If yes, then please include them in your paper because in this case it is worth to discuss whether, apart from the effects of other important factors on harvests, such a relationship can be really detected in documentary evidence (and why, and how significant it could be). Moreover, please think about the option that the discussion of the harvest failure problem might rather fit to a Discussion section (suggested by Ref. No 3).

5) As Referee No. 2 suggested, you have enough data to provide a basic comparison with some existing NAO reconstructions (e.g. using the papers and related datasets uploaded on the NOAA Paleoclimate website), so please consider to do it.

6) You have included some fundamental information about the potential human impact (and the rate of this impact) on the rivers considered; nevertheless, following the path suggested by Referee No. 1, it would be useful to add some basic information whether or not urban (and in general: settlement) development affected flood observations.

7) Please, correct the formal shortcomings mentioned by the reviewers.

The revised, uploaded manuscript will be further checked by two of the reviewers and myself. Thank you!

Dear Author,

I see improvements compared to the previous manuscript version in a number of points suggested by the reviewers (e.g. harvest failure question, human impact). However, some of the important additions required by more than one reviewers are still missing from the text:

1) Although now the author refers more to other European works, there is still not much attempt made to compare these results: could you dedicate at least a couple of sentences more to this question?

2) The author clearly made attempts to follow the reviewers' guidlines in changing the Results section, and adding a Discussion section. In the Discussion section, however, I see now two main blocks, and although there is a subsection 5.1, no other (i.e. 5.2, 5.3 etc.) subsections can be detected, while some of the reviewers' suggestions that would go into the Discussion section are still weakly or not considered (e.g. NAO comparison). The Discussion section of the manuscript still should be improved: e.g the author should consider to dedicate a subsection (this could be 5.1, and the harvest failure question 5.2 etc.) on the more extended comparison of his results with results of other areas (adding e.g. also the NAO comparison).

3) In the Results section (from line 38) it would be great to have an introductory sentence or any indication that the paragraph deals with the question of magnitude (later you mention it, but at first it is not clear). Similarly, in this section the two main overview graphs (Figs. 1 and 2) should be basically referred in the text at the relevant places.

4) Figures: following the reviewers' suggestions, the author has initiated some changes in Figs. 1 and 2. However, in both cases there is still the problem that the Legends - compared to their size and importance occupy far too much space (leaving also spaces behind) on the expense of the graphs: in both Figures the Legend should move either down or up, and the graphs should fill up all space in the Figs (i.e. in Fig. 2. the magnitude categories could be simply moved under the graph etc.). Moreover, in Fig. 2 it owuld be perhaps better to provide the number of events of each categories in the graph, instead of percentages (i.e. when you have only 1 or 2 events per a decade, percentages are anyway problematic to interpret).
Moreover, following the path of the text, the Figure 3 (a map of catchment areas referred in the text) should be Fig. 1, since also in your text this is the first figure you refer too. So, the present FIg. 1 and 2 should be consequently changed to Fig 2 and 3.
While the author adequately refers to the Tables, I hardly can find the Figures referred in the text. Please, reconsider to use and refer to your figures in the relevant places.

5) In a number of places the author refers to a paper as "Hall 2014". This should be correctly referred as "Hall et al. 2014).

6) A quick language check would be also useful on this new version of the manuscript.