First of all, I must say that this scenario take place in recent history, in the last 20 years, but the PoD to allow such thing to happen is in the 19th or the 18th century so I gonna post this discussion here

How would a modern day stratocracy be like, and what we need to do to make it possible?

I'm not talking about heavy militarized states like north korea or the german empire, I mean a full stratocracy, with the army being the main administrative power in the country, with it's provinces (or states if is a federation) being ruled by military governors choosen by a meritocratic system, with the education and the industry being geared towards the military, with the police being the military police, and etc. Something like Amestris from fullmetal alchemist
 
Thailand might be going towards stratocracy.

not enought, they are just a military junta/dictatorship

the definition of a stratocracy, as stratos means army and cracy power:

"A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs. It is not the same as a military dictatorship or military junta where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. Rather, stratocracy is a form of military government in which the state and the military are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity, and government positions are always occupied by commissioned officers and military leaders. Citizens with mandatory or voluntary military service, or who have been honorably discharged, have the right to elect or govern. The military's political power is supported by law, the constitution, and the society.
 
It is a totalitarian socialist constitution according to the wikipedia article you sent, not a stratocrat one, the army does have a lot of functions, but the country was ruled by one party state and by diverse "people's assemblies"
According to Wikipedia's article on stratocracies:
The closest modern equivalent to a stratocracy is the State Peace and Development Council of Myanmar (Burma), which is arguably different from most other military dictatorships in that it completely abolished the civilian constitution and legislature. A new constitution that came into effect in 2010 cemented the military's hold on power through mechanisms such as reserving 25% of the seats in the legislature for military personnel.
 
According to Wikipedia's article on stratocracies:

The same quote you posted says:

"The closest modern equivalent to a stratocracy"

It was a socialist military dictatorship, no a stratrocracy, as the power wasn't fully in the army hands, but under a one party state
 
The same quote you posted says:

"The closest modern equivalent to a stratocracy"

It was a socialist military dictatorship, no a stratrocracy, as the power wasn't fully in the army hands, but under a one party state
Well, it was referring to the SPDC, not the "Burmese Path to Socialism", which was the regime which preceded the SPDC.
 
I expect a real stratocracy would be pretty garbage at both the governing and the military aspects of their jobs. Even if everything was geared towards the success of the military the whole system would collapse in on itself pretty quickly. The military would be incompetent at allocating the kinds of resources needed to ensure a productive workforce and the workforce in turn would have little incentive to support the army.

It's rather like one of those evil fantasy trope dictators with a 0% approval. What legitimacy does a stratocracy have to enforce laws besides brute force? The only time I could see something like this working is in a post-apocalypse setting or a total crisis where the army is the sole remaining civic institution.
 
I'd say your best bet is to have Fascism take a more militaristic form. Basically like it is in Kaiserreich; instead of charismatic demagogues you have military men like MacArthur and Wrangel as the proponents of totalitarianism. What you describe also seems a bit like Starship Troopers.
 
I'd say your best bet is to have Fascism take a more militaristic form. Basically like it is in Kaiserreich; instead of charismatic demagogues you have military men like MacArthur and Wrangel as the proponents of totalitarianism. What you describe also seems a bit like Starship Troopers.

The MacArthurian USA in KR is a stratocracy, but the Wrangelist Russia no, as they have the nobility ruling with him, not the army
 
I would argue that Napoleon attempted to create a statocracy along the lines of his interpretation of the Roman Republic as a model.

Really? Surely army had important role in Napoleonic France but it hardly would has had such power that the nation could be called as stratocracy. With so loose definition Prussia/Imperial Germany would be too stratocracies. And even Roman Republic wasn't very clear stratocracy altough army had important role on society.
 
Imperial Germany in the H&L years of 1916-18. The 1851 Prussian Law of Siege that arose from the revolutions of 1849 gave Corps area commanders extensive powers too govern their areas. H&L invoked these powers and then coordinated their use at the highest level.
 
Egypt and Sudan are also sorta close IOTL, though not really fitting the bill.
An even more militarized Israel (though it's kinda hard to see how; it is really pushing the limits as is) might also be an ATL contender. Turkey is another place where the military historically used to wield a lot of power, within institutional structures (including a fairly rare concept of legal military coups). But I think that a true stratocracy is extremely hard to maintain in a contemporary context.
 
Top