>But I bet the quality of health care available to you exceeds the imagination of those kings and emperors. This raises the question of what should be included in the definition of wealth.

That king probably had one or more personal doctors, people they more or less owned, whose sole purpose and responsibility was their well-being.

Even if the efficiency of that person might have been low, it's certainly a lot more than being able to rent an hour of a doctors time.

Also, I have a color TV, which no king at that time have, but is that technological progress really wealth?

By that definition, starving people with cellphones are still wealthy.