Nothing prevents you from researching this matter for yourself
You imply the contrary, without proofYou implied it. Either you can't back up the implication
or you don't want to offend Tropical Traditionalists by proving it.
That's assuming you've done the research yourself already.
It's quite an unusual generalization that all ancient Astrologers used a Sidereal setting.
No such thing as a practicing, Tropical Astrologer
especially given the importance of Hipparchus to the Alexandrian-Greek
Astrological community, would seem unlikely.
Even if you assert that Hipparchus wouldn't have approved.
You imply the contrary, without proof
Apparently the linking of the humors with elements occurred after Aristotle
and this development has made its way into tropical astrology.
Here is a quote from a site on Greek medicine:
"Aristotle's most important contribution to the theory of Greek Medicine
was his doctrine of the Four Basic Qualities
Hot, Cold, Wet, and Dry.
Later philosopher-physicians would apply these qualities
to characterize the Four Elements, Four Humors, and Four Temperaments.
The Four Basic Qualities are the foundations for all notions of balance
and homeostasis in Greek Medicine."
So Aristotle's four basic qualities are hot, cold, wet and dry
and its these that I suggest can help to explain the foundation of the sidereal trigons.
Then later philosopher-physicians linked the four elements to the humors and temperaments
and tropical astrology has incorporated these into its sign trigons.
These don't transfer to the sidereal zodiac
just as the four qualities can't be transferred to the tropical zodiac.
We can see, however
that the tropical elements don't follow Aristotle's pattern
where Fire is opposite Water and Air is opposite Earth.
In the sidereal zodiac the four qualities are in correct opposition
to each other.
(hot-cold and wet-dry)
Aristotle's elements are made up of combinations of the four qualities
so these have very different meanings than the basic qualities themselves.
You're entitled to an opinion based on no study of the topic such as simply reading this threadIn lieu of actual proof that you provide, I'll ignore your implication. You're entitled to your opinion though.
Ancients (between about 2000 BCE and the early centuries CE) astrology did not differentiate between zodiacal constellations (sidereal astrology) and tropical signs because, during that long period of time, when all the astrology we now know about came into being, the CONSTELLATIONS AND THE TROPICAL SIGNS WERE THE SAME (constellations were in the tropical signs bearing their names)...
The ISSUE of sidereal zodiacal constellations versus the SIGNS of the zodiac, did not arise until after 300 CE when, due to precession, the sidereal zodiacal constellations began to displace from the tropical SIGNS bearing their names.
You're entitled to an opinion based on no study of the topic
those cherry picked implications you just commentedIf you, yourself had studied the topic thoroughly, you wouldn't be cherry-picking a few examples that back up your implication--you're entitled to an opinion based on a cherry-picking expedition. But, generalizations are fun, even though they're generally unreliable.
You can use this software, it's free and has a ton of ayanamsas: http://www.vedicastrologer.org/jh/Vedic seems to be tied to the Hindu religion. Which is fine--I'm already fairly familiar with it, and know people who adhere to it. I'm usually a quick study, if the subject interests me enough. The Hindu words are a bit strange, but once I know what they mean, should be fine. With this Ayanamsa, I'll still be Pisces Sun.
That's where Raman got his ayanamsa based on what I have read.1150 – Indian mathematician-astronomer Bhāskara II, in the Siddhanta Shiromani
calculates the longitudes and latitudes of the planets
lunar and solar eclipses, risings and settings
the Moon's lunar crescent, syzygies
and conjunctions of the planets with each other
and with the fixed stars
and explains the three problems of diurnal rotation
1150s – Bhaskara calculates the planetary mean motion, ellipses,
first visibilities of the planets, the lunar crescent, the seasons
and the length of the Earth's revolution around the Sun to 9 decimal places.
JA, that's interesting. Dorotheus has about a dozen charts in his book.
So after reading your post I've just tested it with his first chart.
And it didn't work with tropical
however, it did work with sidereal (Raman again, not Lahiri)!
I've got April 12, 268 BC as the exact date.
The best guess Pingree could provide in the appendix was
May 2, 29 AD (with Mars in the wrong sign!).
So yeah, sidereal seems to be the original thing, not tropical.
This is from gregoryrozek.com
"But, if you'd inspect 'the Anthology of Valens' clearly, you'll see that he regards the zero degrees Aries as placed at 8 degrees before the Vernal Point. This was a very popular view in the early Hellenistic astrology, and it comes directly from the Babylonian sources."
Ancients (between about 2000 BCE and the early centuries CE) astrology
did not differentiate between zodiacal constellations (sidereal astrology) and tropical signs
because, during that long period of time, when all the astrology we now know about came into being
the CONSTELLATIONS AND THE TROPICAL SIGNS WERE THE SAME
(constellations were in the tropical signs bearing their names)...
The ISSUE of sidereal zodiacal constellations versus the SIGNS of the zodiac
did not arise until after 300 CE when, due to precession
the sidereal zodiacal constellations began to displace from the tropical SIGNS bearing their names.
For another ancient tropical astrologer, see the poet Manilius, Astronomica, 1st century CE. 3:644ff:
JA, if you want to do sidereal astrology, do sidereal astrology. But you will have to drop your affiliation with western tropical astrology of the past 2000 years to do that.