AHC: A Platonic state

Would it any point in history be possible to develop a state built entirely on Plato's ideas as outlined in "The Republic"? What manner of bizarrely idealistic ruler would attempt to create a state built on the tripartite philosopher/warrior/worker division, the absence of family life, and so on? Preferable if it happens before the development of modern ideologies. The state in question need not (and might not be capable of) lasting for more than a generation, but should at least have enough staying power to affect the world for a while.
 
Would it any point in history be possible to develop a state built entirely on Plato's ideas as outlined in "The Republic"? What manner of bizarrely idealistic ruler would attempt to create a state built on the tripartite philosopher/warrior/worker division, the absence of family life, and so on? Preferable if it happens before the development of modern ideologies. The state in question need not (and might not be capable of) lasting for more than a generation, but should at least have enough staying power to affect the world for a while.

Really this could happen in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, if you stretch, and act a bit ASBy
 
You'd probably have someone adopt the philosophy as the forming idea of the state. People aren't a fan of having their families dissolved.

I'd put in a Philip Lives timeline, if the PoD is that Philip agrees rather than disagrees with Plato. (IOTL they distinctly disagreed on this topic.)

Have him take captives, and use them to create a caste of people completely outside the family structure. Raised by the King and his government, under that principle. More or less to break any resistance to his rule in his new Empire. The key is to take them as children, and through them organise them in the Gold/Silver/Bronze hierarchy. Furthermore, once established, you can always offer families the ability to give their children over for some money - particularly the poor, who in turn expand this system.

Eventually that caste can overtake the rest of society, first by forming a large loyal force for the King, later expanding to be a polity within a polity, which then supercedes and tears apart the remnants of the parent polity.

But that slow takeover, over probably over generations, is the key. Break family bonds. Reorganise. Overwhelm.

Then in theory, assuming you have a series of rules for establishing a King (heck, the inheritance might be how this society fully forms, perhaps even as a breakaway), it can continue.

Personally, I like the idea of Philip trying it out as a way to replace Byzantion, since the site is so good - and turning that location into the heart of the system - taking 1000s of captive children, bringing wealth, bringing teachers of all kinds, and settling them there, and using The City.

The lingering problem is how you deal with the established Elites - and all I can think of is granting them all "Gold" status, and after a point, if they try and keep their children, crushing them ruthlessly. That will include the royal family however, so unless you have some sort of adoption by Alexander (perhaps as a way to supersede his other rivals IOTL as heir), then I'm not sure how it survives Philip, unless the Royal Family is outside the system until it reaches critical mass. (Perhaps a Bronze-Quality King reveals themselves).

But yeah, Alt-Philip choosing to try the idea to integrate his new lands COULD be a PoD to try this out.
 
Tbh, I don't see this happening in the ancient world. In short, this seems more like the kind of society you could get if Plato was way more popular during the enlightenment revolutionary era.

The silver and bronze classes themselves shouldn't be too hard. The Gold class however would be hard to sell to anybody but a revolutionary. Leaders tend not to want to live such ascetic lives, and there is actually significant demands on the philosopher king. Living amongst the people in conditions poorer than them, a strict exercise regiment and communal ownership whilst being a fulltime academic, teacher and ruler.

If you are in the position of establishing yourself as a ruler, why would you opt for that unless you were a revolutionary?

Weirdly, although their philosophy may be as anti-plato as you could get, Tibet under the lamas may be as close to it as you could get pre-revolutionary times.
 
Confucian china sorta kinda fits the bill if you squint hard enough. An upper class composed of Scholar-Bureaucrats, followed by the working class artisans/peasants and merchants. If they had added a soldier class to the whole thing it would have fit the bill rather nicely.

Another example would be feudal Europe in a sort of kinda way with their three classes: The nobles who rule/fight, the Priests who pray, and the Peasants who work. If some how you had some sort of theocratic christian state established with the priesthood becoming the "nobility of sort" and the secular nobles/knights being exclusively confined to the duties of war and the peasants sticking with what they were doing you would have something similar in character. The priests were typically well learned and could in a way count as philosophers. Kinda sorta.

Not perfect but sorta close in a way. In the case of the second the best way I could see it happening would be in the papal states, they need to eliminate their secular nobles though while somehow retaining the knightly class. Feasible but not easy.
 
Top