Demetrios, you commented (on Isocrates), The man was also an idealist and argued that the form of constitution was less important than the ethical make-up of those who make policy. And THAT immediately made me think of Aristotle and his conception that democracy was probably a less efficient form of government than a philosopher-king (again, the emphasis on the ethical make-up of the one-man ruler). And THAT made me think of Europe in the 1930's (free association!) In so many places, following the Great War, there was a disillusionment with the democratic systems that may have had titular kings, but still showed many democratic features . . . and what do we end up with? The great dictators, from Mussolini to Stalin to Hitler. People had become so tired of war and anarchy that any strong man who could 'make the trains run on time' seemed better than a flailing democracy, even within a monarchial system, if the monarch really didn't have the power to FIX things.

I think once you've made the transition to saying "only one strong man can make all these democrats stop tearing the state to pieces," it's a very nice notion that he should be wise, educated, learned, a philosopher - but talk about being unreally idealistic!!! In fact, I think Alexander came far closer to the philosopher-king notion than almost anyone else I can think of who was in it for the power alone.