Morten St George Theory

[Linda]

However i cannot see anything resembling the vms castle fitting on your hill. It would need all the unexplained steep walls to be built to keep it from toppling off the back end of the mountain.

Exactly.
The topography severely limits what could be built.
There have been archaeological excavations done and the old 13thC castle plan is known. It is pretty much the same as the new one, except for an additional row of walls. An illustration can be found on page 119 at the link below:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

By the way Morten, the article explains that the water storage was not up in a tower as you presume but in a cistern on one of the artificial terraces where housing was built below the castle.
None of these inhabited terraces are visible in the VMS description: the "cliffs" are bare.

This premise of yours that "it is not known, therefore I'm right" is a logical fallacy. Especially when things are known.

Thats funny, i was looking at the pics and that is how it seemed to me too, not that i trusted myself to know better than what is written, but now that you mention it, looks like they used broken bits to build it up, then added another storey at a later time. I also doubted anyone would completely destroy something at the top of a mountain, you would get it down to safe, so it wouldnt topple, then build onto it,  which is what appears to have happened. To do otherwise would be a waste of resources.


I also agree with your identification of the logical fallacy. It is super convenient if we can't prove otherwise, but i think there are enough problems here that we can feel confident that this solution is not the correct one.