Two Referees have provided a number of constructive comments to your HESSD paper. All the points raised were then properly addressed in the online discussion. Thus, I suggestion a minor revision of the paper based on a careful consideration of all Referees's comments.

The manuscript was significantly improved by the authors, but a few comments were not sufficiently addressed. The paper can be published after a minor revision, which should consider the following three points.

1. Both referees comment about the fact that the paper would benefit from a better link to dominant precipitation patterns and/or weather situations across Europe. I agree with them. More information on the dominating weather processes would contribute even more to the goal of “advancing the understanding of geographical and climate sensitivity of annual maximum floods”.

2. The authors should give more credit to other scholars and previous work in the field. This paper would benefit from more references to previous studies, as not many studies are cited here. This can be achieved by discussing the role of precipitations patterns (point 1 above), discussing potential future possibilities (point 3 below), or adding a discussion about the actual implication of flood seasonality (why is it relevant?) by linking this study more with current advances in the study of dynamic flood risk (socio-hydrology, practical applications, etc.). All these additional aspects would enrich this paper, and make it stand out more from previous recent publications.

3. I also agree with another point raised by Rev#1. One single paragraph discussing potential changes in the future would make this paper much more interesting. This does not imply additional work, but a scientific discussion about the potential role of increasing temperature. If the authors think that nothing can be said about future changes, it would be very interesting to read exactly why.