Serious historians forgive me. Watching game of thrones got me thinking. Firstly is it true that in Roman times or in the middle ages half of the king's (emperor's) court were planning to off him and take over? Is that just an invention of Shakespeare or was the life of a king that precarious?

If the answer is yes then my second question is why would anyone want to spend their lives plotting to become the king when in quality of life terms the upward move would hardly register. Surely any nobleman could eat the same types and amount of food, sleep with as many women as and do pretty much all the things a king could do. Even rich merchants could presumably do all that. Also if you are caught plotting against the king you are dead, correct? So there's a huge downside and seemingly very little upside. Why would they do it?

the praetorian guard assassinated a bunch of emperors that's for sure

Well, logically speaking, it seems likely that the people responsible for orchestrating the assassination of kings were not always doing it to step in themselves, but rather to place some ally or favorable replacement on the throne while they continue to operate in the shadows. As for the replacement himself, youth, ambition, stupidity, or naivete would suffice to idealize his view of kingship; so you just have to find one candidate who possesses one of those qualities, really.

But I'm speaking from a vast and appalling ignorance of actual history, minus some scraps.

the 200 to 300 AD is pretty brutal in that case. Roman emperor's just died left and right

However, after the firm assertion of the divine right's of kings, this became less of a problem - to take the risk of killing the one who represent gods on earth was of course, very dangerous if one believes in heaven/hell/judgement day.

you don't think there's a big upside to being king? maybe ask some of your best friends, they should know why someone would want no authority above himself

What is the material upside? As compared to being a rich merchant or court flunky?

well, for one thing you'd way richer than any rich merchant or court flunky. there will also be almost no one you have to bow to with all that that encompasses.
you're probably right that a lot of future kings might be better of not getting the throne; but part of that is certainly results oriented thinking.

In quality of life terms? I doubt it. I'm talking middle ages in europe and the roman leaders. Having a billion gold sovereigns or whatever doesn't make much difference when there's nothing much to spend them on.

i think the last part isnt true. there was a ton of crap to spend money on even back then, especially if you combine incredible amounts of money with absolute sovereignty and a lack of regard for human life; see for example gladiator fights in Rome. of course you dont really need any of the stuff you could buy with a billion more gold if you have several millions already but that's beside the point.

it's not beside the point it kind of is the point. I'm saying the material difference between being a king and being a rich merchant/member of the court in terms of the things you can buy, clothes you wear, things you eat and activities you partake of seems tiny especially when compared to the seemingly large increase in the risks associated with the job. One of my assumptions may very well be wrong but that's the basis of my question.

i meant need as in existential, clothes, a house, enough food etc. beyond that you dont really need anything but there's always something better and more expensive out there. i agree that it's usually not worth the risk to become king just for the monetary gain but you may be underestimating the other factors - envy and greed for example.

Material difference isn't the main variable in the equation, though. For the Romans, being emperor literally gave you divine standing. It's really hard to buy that kind of prestige. Overtly material concerns as an end in themselves are largely a product of industrial societies. For the Romans, wealth in and of itself was nothing to be proud of. But for someone who cared about living comfortably, you could have got by just fine just being a rich patrician or even a wealthy and successful pleb with basically no political ambitions.

As to why someone would take that risk... I dunno, some people are ambitious to the point of stupidity.

Caligula aspired to bone the wives of half the nobility, even Caesar couldn't dream of such ambition.

(let alone a mere patrician)

The upside of being king is you don't have to worry about the king deciding he doesn't like you and taking all your stuff away or the king deciding to start some stupid war you have to go fight in.

You do realise that the two times you've put together - the middle ages and the roman leaders - have over a thousand years separating them?

The middle ages in Europe is easy enough - it wasn't that much more dangerous to be king then be a nobleman. You're probably going to die at a relatively early age compared to now, but so was everybody else - and you're probably more likely to die in battle or from illness than from a conspiracy.

The upside to both eras is probably the same - unlimited power

Noblesse Oblige

Good question OP and imo it's an ego thing.
I'm guessing for the emotionally unstable people being #1 > all risk that comes with it, even today.

how has this not been posted yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90cwlneRjPQ

'Prisons and graveyards are full of boys who wore the crown'
'Point is they wore it - it's my turn to wear it now'


People wanting to be king want it because you get to be ****ing king