That last reply would not have been at all necessary if you had taken a look at the links provided in my initial comment. Plague DID hit Europe previous to the time period denoted by the "550 years later". Could you not see that?
As far as Gregory of Tours dying long before the "Bald" guy, that does not in the least prove your point, but instead refutes it (in a narrow, almost technical sense) -- in that Gregory was a witness for plague reaching Europe (and France in particular) previous to the 14th century.
So stand on the beach at low tide near water's edge all you wish. But to pretend the waters (of plague) are at that level and had always been so...(until the 14th century) is to be willfully fooling yourself. Is it so that you will not need be ever corrected yourself in the slightest, as you go about from thread to thread castigating by any means possible persons you may see as critics of Romanism?
I gave you an inter-tidal, temporarily "dry" place to stand. Why not take it? There was no significant plague outbreak during that period --- which happens to be the period which was mentioned in passing conversation. Yet there WAS plague before that time, which was the point I was making.
Justinian's plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?
“Justinian’s plague hit France too. Is that plain enough?”
No. Justinian’s plague (in the 540’s) was 300 hundred years BEFORE Charles the Bald. Thus, no one could be worried about it - which was the original point made by the other poster. Go back and look at the thread.
You are really not helping yourself here. You keep supporting my point by pointing out there was no plague in Europe for three hundred years before Charles and more than 500 years after him. One of things you have to be able to do when discussing history is be able to count. Three hundred years before and 550 years after clearly means no plague anytime soon from the time of Charles the Bald. It’s just that simple.