[dyed_in_the_wool]

I hate to say it, but Platos Republic. So many students have focused on the illogical Plato instead of the Greek-era Renaissance man Aristotle. Plato's Republic was a nice fantasy, but it has no logical proof in the real world.

Then you obviously didn't understand it. Or worse, it was not properly contextualized for you.
Check out his Epistle VII and get a better grasp of the pragmatism his political philosophy ultimately took.
The Republic is largely the proof of the existence of a soul, using the state as an example. The political views in it are untenable. The Laws is much closer to a pure Platonic political philosophy.
As for Aristotle, he DID tutor Philip of Macedon's son Alexander who became a pretty noteworthy conquerer...

[struggle]

It's not that I didnt understand it. If I didnt I couldnt lie my way out of philosophy and logic 110. It's just the basis of the whole matter that disturbed me. Even though Aristotle explores metaphysics, he does in a convincing way that seems to be bounded to some kind of truth. The part of the republic that deals with the "ideals" simply was distasteful. I find that many student do not read the whole thing and get the "cave story" spit out to them by a junior college professor and see it as some kind of enlightenment. I thought that plato was a good guy that meant well, but compared to aristotle, he uses rationalism in excess and no empiricism at all. All that was 5 years ago anyway, and all this rushing around teaching, translating, and other things has probably left the whole world un-contextualized.