Your grasp of ancient philosophy is tenuous at best.
And you are naturally going to explain how, because otherwise, your refutation is worthless.
Why? He only got kicked out because he refused to ingratiate himself to the new regime. Why was getting fired and his arms broken likely to make him want to ingratiate himself to them more?
I don't know where you get the idea that his arms were broken.
Machiavelli wanted his old job back in the diplomatic corps of Florence. He wanted to be in the center of government because that's the kind of man he was. He didn't care that it was for a regime that he may not like. He just wanted to be part of the action. The last chapter in The Prince explains clearly why he would've wanted his job back, despite possibly being against the current boss. He was displeased that Italy was being dominated by foreign powers and wanted to help expel them and perhaps to unify Italy under one power. That it happened to be a monarchy was not as much of a concern to him.
Hobbes is the person that really demonstrates your argument - which isn't entirely incorrect - not Plato and Aristotle, whose writings weren't what you portray them to be.
And you are incorrect on several notes.
Hobbes also tried to use philosophical justification for his ideas. He believed that absolute control was necessary to retain stability. He even tries to calm concerns that such power would be corruptive. He still tries to justify power as something more useful than for its own sake.
Plato's Republic is quite clearly a totalitarian state. I know there is this prevailing delusion that it's about the nature of justice and the soul, but it's quite clear to me that was being serious and not metaphorical. Part of the proof for this is that Aristotle, writing in Politics a generation later, spends at least a chapter criticizing The Republic and Plato.
This is exactly right. Aristotle wasn't an extremist, and his entire philosophy is empirical. He observed that moderation is best in human matters, and concluded that the best government is a middle ground between democracy and despotism. I can't help but feel anybody who attempts to criticize Aristotle on this is really just trying to discredit modern peripatetics by association. It's about as silly as trying to discredit the scientific method by pointing out that Isaac Newton held archaic beliefs.
Aristotle's notions of politics were rather measured, but he still believed that some people could only be ruled, while others could be ruled or rule. He believed that certain "barbarians" were only capable of submission and not capable of the decision making necessary for effective administration. (He also uses this to justify slavery.) He clearly states that there is no one perfect government, but that each society has a form of government best suited to it.
Socrates' hypothetical city in the Republic is an allegory for a well-ordered soul.
See above my answer to why Plato was quite serious in referring to a government and not being as metaphorical as some would claim.
I've not read the entire corpus of Plato, and so Plotinus can doubtlessly give a more informed opinion than I, but from what I've read so far, Plato seemed to be rather uninterested in matters of the state except in how they pertained to the soul.
That was one justification of his. In fact, Plato was immensely interested in the state, because his own state of Athens was defeated in the Peloponnesian War. It is clear to me that he spends much of The Republic in veiled criticism of his government for leading to that defeat, and criticizing its rulers for being poor leaders, and its people as being too petty and corrupt.
