Was Leo always seen as a joke

It seems like everything I read about Leos online whenever I google things about astrology is that the sign is flamboyant, flashy, try-hard, and almost always emotionally weak. Easy to read and an easy target as well. If Scorpio was the golden child of astrology (which it is actually based on the bias towards it), Leo is its retarded cousin.

Come to think of it, it's not even domiciled anywhere except for the sun which isn't even a planet.

The sign has no exalts anywhere in astrology and no other domiciles.

Starting to wonder how it was in older astrology where there was less bias.

Leo is masculine, the house of the sun, free, fiery, temperate, intellectual, kingly, stable, noble,
upward-trending, changeable, solid, governing, civic, imperious, irascible, Men born under this sign are
distinguished, noble, steady, just, haters of evil, independent, haters of flattery, beneficent, inflated with
their lofty thoughts. If the houseruler is at an angle or in aspect with benefics, then brilliant, glorious
individuals are born, tyrants and kings.

^ I don't know what this modern astrologer was smoking.

19th Law,

You might read some serious "older astrology" books so that you can answer your own questions. None of the ones I'm aware of use your social media tribal model for sun signs. (And no, I don't mean Linda Goodman's Sun Signs.)

Signs are not domiciled or exalted. Planets are domiciled in the signs they rule. Planets are exalted in signs, not the other way around. The sun is domiciled in Leo.

Astrology is not astronomy. In astrology, the sun and moon are considered to be planets, probably because the original Greek work for a planet meant a heavenly body that moved or "wandered", relative to the fixed stars. However, the sun and moon are also called the luminaries.

The sun in astrology is considered to be the source of life.

Every sign has one traditional ruler; and if you do modern astrology, 3 signs have modern rulers or co-rulers.

Several signs contain no exalted planets. The exaltations are sun/Aries, moon/Taurus, Mercury/Virgo, Venus/Pisces, Mars/Capricorn, Jupiter/Cancer, and Saturn/Libra.

No planets are exalted in Scorpio, Aquarius, or Leo. Some modern astrologers have assigned exaltations of the trans-Saturnians but I wouldn't use them.

Here is a modern astrology synopsis of "Sun in Leo" from Robert Hand, Planets in Youth.

spirited, strong-willed, attention-seeking, can be a show-off, warm, affectionate, wants to have own way, proud, self-important, truthful, desires others' respect and self-respect, dislikes secrecy, persistent, goal-oriented, leadership-oriented.

My own experience of sun-Leos is that they do want that leadership role and are normally uninterested in subsuming their interests to those of other people: i. e., being followers. They can have difficulties in being good listeners, because this would give that center-stage role to someone else. They are oriented towards being the expert.

Of course, some Leos can pull of being leaders and authorities better than others. An insensitive, insecure Leo can therefore come across as arrogant. A successful leader gives something back to his/her followers-- as a positive role model and loyal team-leader.

Leos don't wish to be thought of as cheap, shabby or petty. Hence Leo will learn to be magnanimous and generous, as the superior course of action, vs. being thought of as stingy or mean-spirited.

Leo's motto might be, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well;" if not exactly, "****, I'm good!"

Leo's status, if you think about it, depends upon successful social relationships. When these don't go so well, or if the Leo sun is in the 12th or the 8th house, Leos can actually be very private people. They can control their lives and sustain their self-esteem better by not subjecting themselves to others' criticism. As a fixed sign, Leos appreciate structure. They are out of their element in a chaotic or topsy-turvy environment with no clear chain of command.

As friends and lovers, Leos have the capacity for a lot of loyalty and flair. However, said friends and lovers had better let Leo be the dominant one in the relationship. (Also true when Leo is female.)

Leo wants to have a nice home, nice clothes, &c. (As opposed to an Aquarian or Piscean who could care less.) This isn't entirely about status, but more about enjoying the good things of life, and appreciating a sense of style that expresses the Leo's personality.

An unhappy Leo benefits from getting more sunshine-- not surprisingly, the sign of Leo rules deserts.

At its best, Leo knows all about joy of living and self-expression.

Conspiracy Theorist: who is your quote from: Ptolemy or Valens?

@Waybeard

It's quote from my master Valens, obviously. Specifically, he talked about Leo rising in general. However, he is in fact siderealist though, so not really relevant to OP's discussion, JMO.

Carl Jung was a Leo, and a very serious one. He had Scorpio-like insight into psychology.


Napoleon was a Leo and he made the entire Europe bow before him.

SunConjunctUranus said:

@Waybeard

It's quote from my master Valens, obviously. Specifically, he talked about Leo rising in general. However, he is in fact siderealist though, so not really relevant to OP's discussion, JMO.

Click to expand...

Since today's tropical zodiac is 24 to 27 degrees later than the sidereal zodiac of Valens' day (150 C. E.) and today, most tropical sun Leos are actually sidereal Cancers.

While I think signs do have meaning, we want to recognize that, to some extent, they are functions of which zodiac we use.

A good reason not to get too tribal about sun signs.

One other consideration from a more traditional perspective is that the moon in Cancer is also domiciled, which may make it stronger than the sun in a chart. With a night birth, especially for a woman, and the moon in-sect and the sun not picking up any dignity, the moon may be the stronger luminary.

In Valens' day, the ascendant was probably the main "me" point in the chart, not the sun.

I found another wacky astrologer's opinion on Leo, and this time he uses the decans to make his prognostication! Modern astrology really need to go kick rocks.

The twelth-part Leo, which is considered the heart and the places around it, is the house of the Sun, diurnal, four-footed, barren, kingly, masculine, terrestrial,licentious, semi-vocal.

Its decans are three: the first is Charchnoumis, the second Epe, the third Phoupe. He who is brought forth, then, upon the first decan will be gaurded by crowds, and will be listened to, and he will be acute and not be despised, one who does well by those subject to him, and he will investigate and acquire much, though he will be open to censure on account of a woman. The signs of this decan: He will be tall in stature, the face youthful, red, the eyes large, keen-scented, the legs thin; he will have trouble with his feet and flatulence.

And he who is brought forth upon the second decan will be a master, a king; he will be declared a plenipotentiary, and he will subject and found cities, and many will pay tribute to him, and the discovery of gold, and his mind will be inspired by him, and his honor equal to the Gods. The signs: he will be quite large, broad-chested, he will be withered from his thighs to his feet, his skin lion-coloured, a sweet conversationalist; he will have trouble with his tendons.

And he who is brought forth upon the third decan will be raised with wealth, and he will be prudent, learned, dear to many; he will have bodily injuries and birthmarks and kingly struggles and powerful plots against him; later he will overcome them, and he will have authority over property and will be good at business on behalf of the gods, and he will be well-favoured by women, but he will be injured in his extremities. The signs of this decan: He will be of middling stature, the face red, the eyes protruding; he will be unbridled around women.

The19thLaw said:

It seems like everything I read about Leos online whenever I google things about astrology is that the sign is flamboyant, flashy, try-hard, and almost always emotionally weak. Easy to read and an easy target as well. If Scorpio was the golden child of astrology (which it is actually based on the bias towards it), Leo is its retarded cousin.

Come to think of it, it's not even domiciled anywhere except for the sun which isn't even a planet.

The sign has no exalts anywhere in astrology and no other domiciles.

Starting to wonder how it was in older astrology where there was less bias.

Click to expand...

https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=920579#post920579

petosiris said:

The image of the Lion is masculine, diurnal, solid, terrestrial, quadrupedal, feral, royal, vocal, semi-infertile, passionate, fierce, running and of the north wind. It indicates action, reputation, superiors, harsh matters and quarrels. Depending on the placement of the houseruler, men born under the influence of Leo are large, distinguished, independent, reliable, just, despising flattery, haughty, irascible, daring, with fine face, smooth, small ears because the Lion rarely listens to the talk of others, higher upper part of the body, thin-set teeth, rugged, flushy, bright, imperious, stable, haters of evil, beneficent and inflated with lofty thoughts. The front is robust, but the back is weaker.

Domicile of Sun, it controls the sides, the circulatory system, the nervous system and the eyesight, especially the right eye. It causes blindness on account of the Coma Star Cluster. It is like-empowered with Aries and like-ascending with Virgo, tall in the Northern Hemisphere and short in the Southern Hemisphere. It is summery, hot and dry for the north, and wintry, cold and moist for the south. Leo commands Libra for the north and obeys it for the south. Leo controls Italy, Gaul, Apulia, Phoenicia, Chaldaea and Orchenia. The head and Regulus are rising up to the 6th degree, the front up to the 11th, the belly up to the 18th, the back up to the 24th, and the tail up to the 30th.

The first 6° belong to Jupiter - elevation, friendships with superiors
The next 5° belong to Venus - good fortune, friendships with superiors
The next 7° belong to Saturn - magnitude, of many years, infertile
The next 6° belong to Mercury - intelligent, some are winners of games
The final 6° belong to Mars - misfortune, dangers, passionate

Head - Saturn and moderately Mars
Throat - Saturn and moderately Mercury
Regulus - Jupiter and Mars
Hip and Denebola - Saturn and Venus
Thighs - Venus and moderately Mercury


Such, then, are the observations of the effects of the stars as made by our predecessors. Let us now proceed with the seven-zone.

Bibliography:
Ludwich, A. (Ed.). (1877). Maximi et Ammonis carminum De actionum auspiciis reliquiae: accedunt Anecdota astrologica. BG Teubneri. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/maximietammonisc00ludw/page/n3
Manilius, & Goold, G. P. (1985). Astronomica. BG Teubner.
Robbins, F. E. (1940). Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos. William Heinmann, London. Retrieved from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/home.html
Schmidt, R. The Astrological Record of the Early Greek Sages. Project Hindsight.
Valens, V. Anthologia. Translated by Mark Riley. Retrieved from https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius Valens entire.pdf

Click to expand...

Conspiracy theorist, who are you citing?

The decans were huge in ancient astrology as you probably know. They were based on the ancient Egyptian use of fixed stars to use the heavens as their clock and calendar.

We don't have a clear idea today of what the Egyptian decans stars were. They were named in the Egyptian language, so their names seem a bit odd today. Firmicus Maternus gets into them and says they are extremely important.

I think dwads (duads, division of each sign into 12 mini-signs of 2.5 degrees each, also used in Antiquity) are a lot more interesting to work with.

But re: the OP: a sun Leo with the sun in the Leo decans and dwad should show more characteristics of the straight-up sign than would someone with, say, the sun in the Aries decan and Cancer dwad.

waybread said:

Conspiracy theorist, who are you citing?

Click to expand...

Hephaistos of Thebes, Book I of his Apotelesmatics
http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/astrologers/hephaistio-of-thebes/

His work is significant because it alongside Ptolemy's tetrabiblos were the hellenistic works that came down to us in the best condition. It's significance also lies in its aim to unify the astrology of Ptolemy and that of Dorotheus. It gives the most extensive delineation of the Decans, although it doesn't give the images of the decans like in other works of the period, although these are lacking in delineation details. These decans have nothing to do with the sub-parting of the zodiacal signs into smaller segments of the zodiac. Due to its greater integrity, it aids to provide insight into the kind of material that those of the period had at their disposal, since it would be expected that they would all have the ability to gain access to said material.

I think dwads (duads, division of each sign into 12 mini-signs of 2.5 degrees each, also used in Antiquity) are a lot more interesting to work with.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so?

Good post, CT, thanks.

First of all, there is no reason "up in the sky" why dwads should work. Which gets back to my own understanding of why astorlogy works-- assuming it does. But I digress.

In a horoscope reading there are several levels of complexity to get to. Level 1 would just be a straight-up reading of planets in signs, houses, and in aspect. Level 2 might be things like essential dignities and reception. Level 3 might include more esoteric calculations (like most of the Arabian parts or fixed stars) that you can probably get by without.

But the big advantage of working through a chart from the major themes to the minor ones, is that it requires one to just spend that much more time on the chart. We get to know it much more intimately.

There are several dwad systems. I just use the common one where the first 2.5 degrees of a sign are the same as that sign, and the rest follow suit. If someone's sun is at 3 degrees of Leo, it is in the Virgo dwad. At 29 degrees Leo, it is in the Cancer dwad.

With dwads, for example, we might find someone with a chart showing a moderate Leo emphasis. But as we work out the dwads for the planets in other signs, we might find that several fall in the Leo dwads of their respective signs. If so, this strengthens the Leo emphasis in the chart.

Also, there seems to be a link between parents' and children's sun/moon/ascendant signs with dwads. For example, my Aquarian sun (tropical) is in the Scorpio dwad, as are a few other planets of their signs. My mother's sun was in Scorpio. My ascendant is in the Leo dwad of Virgo, and my mother's moon was in Leo. My sun-Virgo daughter's sun is in the Leo dwad of Virgo: my moon is in Leo, as well. Australian astrologer Alice Portman has made a study of inter-generational dwads, with interesting results.

Which gets back to my concern about simple sun-sign astrology as expressed in the OP. It just misses too much.

The19thLaw said:

It seems like everything I read about Leos online whenever I google things about astrology is that the sign is flamboyant, flashy, try-hard, and almost always emotionally weak. Easy to read and an easy target as well. If Scorpio was the golden child of astrology (which it is actually based on the bias towards it), Leo is its retarded cousin.

Come to think of it, it's not even domiciled anywhere except for the sun which isn't even a planet.

The sign has no exalts anywhere in astrology and no other domiciles.

Starting to wonder how it was in older astrology where there was less bias.

Click to expand...

I do think there is some water sign bias among astrologers these days. Scorpio does get a lot of hype. Likewise, a lot of the seriousness of the fire signs has been scrubbed out, reducing them to mostly comic relief. But this new kind of interpretation did not exist in antiquity or even in astrology up until the 20th century. This modern interpretation seems to have begun around the time of the New Age movement.

I do think modern astrology is heavy with the introvert-extrovert dichotomy, with extroverts as party animals who cannot be counted on for anything truly serious or meaningful. Of course, this dichotomy is false and not in based in reality, but it does make some people feel good about themselves so they promote it.

The19thLaw said:

It seems like everything I read about Leos online whenever I google things about astrology is that the sign is flamboyant, flashy, try-hard, and almost always emotionally weak. Easy to read and an easy target as well. If Scorpio was the golden child of astrology (which it is actually based on the bias towards it), Leo is its retarded cousin.

Come to think of it, it's not even domiciled anywhere except for the sun which isn't even a planet.

The sign has no exalts anywhere in astrology and no other domiciles.

Starting to wonder how it was in older astrology where there was less bias.

Click to expand...

I've hated Leos on the past and I'll admit it's one of my least favourite signs. But I have a close friend that lights up my world each time I'm with her with moon in Leo but she's deep too because she had moon opposite Pluto (I have moon in Taurus opposite pluto). So she is an extravert, generous (Leos are supposed to be) but also deep and insightful.

It's not that Leos are underrated, it's just that the astrological community is literally filled with water signs, occult 8th house, 12th house people and yes many scorps and plutonics that are condemned in society so they glorify their traits on here.

A water dominant person especially with a lot of Scorpio will always be stopped by anxiety, fear, paranoia, triggering of their trauma and paranormal beliefs. They will be deemed evil by some, mysterious by others, stupid for having superstitious beliefs, and useless for having as much fear and anxiety as they do. They will be the crazy ex girlfriend with who wasnt necessarily a 10 but oozed sex appeal so you had to **** her so now she's the troubled one because she can't get over you. This is why don't be jealous of the glorification that scorps get in this community.

Growing up I had another friend without pluto moon with a stellium in leo. She was always deemed more competent than me because she acted without hesitation, Centre of attention of everyone around her, assertive and vocal. I was anxious, careful, painfully shy and fragile looking and although we were the same age, people were ten times more likely to allow her to go out by herself than me. I'm predominantly earth and water with a libra asc.


And Leos are the king regardless of all the hype about scorps and they will remain to be the king of the zodiac.

Secondly I wanted to add is that vedic astrology hypes Leos up more and doesn't overrate Scorpio and 8th house as much as Western astrology much.


Vedic astrology from what I've seen likes sag, Pisces, cancer, Leo, and Taurus from what I've noticed.

Let's be honest, Leos can be a joke. But not in a bad way. Not all signs need to be serious, calculating , success driven or whatever people seem not a joke. Leos are like the never growing kids. Life is fun for them. They tend to crack silly jokes and laugh their butts off at their own jokes. They are often deemed as immature because apparently in this world we all have to be saturnians .

I'd say every Leo placement is a blessing. Yes they are a little egoic , a little flamboyant,they sure as hell love attention and will make a clown out of themselves to get it , but somehow that's their charm. I do find them a little annoying tho, even tho I'm a leo moon, go figure.

And it's absolutely true Leos are emotionally weak. They are just so sensitive that they take everything to heart. Their caring nature seems to be too gentle and positive to deal with harsh realism and rejection. They are also highly insecure , which they compensate with "ego".

I still don't know what's that bias towards signs. Basically every sign has a weakness and a strength. I still don't know if you are just reading bs sources or you create that bias in your head with your perspective.

Leos are about as success driven as it gets, if anything I'd say even moreso than Capricorns because a Leo will risk it all to have it. I will admit though, the funny and attention craving thing is true but with Leos I find it is more transparent and out there. Compare this to a Scorpio who will put on the mask of someone who does not seem to care but they actually care a great deal more for attention, validation, and being acknowledged by others.

As for emotionally weak, I'd say that water signs in general are emotionally the weakest. Fire signs can get egotistical but in a different way. A hurt Leo won't cry on the inside, it will just have a chip on its shoulder and push harder to get to where it needs to get to (as is the case with quite a few Leo men, Tom Brady in particular).

Air signs are emotionally the strongest because they can hear a lot of insults and keep on moving. Earth signs are the same, they are objective and don't get their feelings hurt as easily. Fire signs can get egotistical and confrontational except a Leo will hold a grudge.

Water signs take everything personally but on a tough exterior, deep down they are the most emotionally unstable. Don't mean to hurt your feelings either since you are a Scorpio that larps as a Capricorn.

Yeah, let's look at all those water-sun weaklings. Like:

Henry the 8th (Cancer)

George Washington (Pisces)

Theodore Roosevelt (Scorpio)

Bill Gates (Scorpio)

Gen. George Patton (Scorpio)

Julius Caesar (Cancer)

Pres. James Madison (Pisces)

Pres. Andrew Jackson (Pisces)

Wyatt Earp (Pisces)

The19thLaw said:

Leos are about as success driven as it gets, if anything I'd say even moreso than Capricorns because a Leo will risk it all to have it. I will admit though, the funny and attention craving thing is true but with Leos I find it is more transparent and out there. Compare this to a Scorpio who will put on the mask of someone who does not seem to care but they actually care a great deal more for attention, validation, and being acknowledged by others.

As for emotionally weak, I'd say that water signs in general are emotionally the weakest. Fire signs can get egotistical but in a different way. A hurt Leo won't cry on the inside, it will just have a chip on its shoulder and push harder to get to where it needs to get to (as is the case with quite a few Leo men, Tom Brady in particular).

Air signs are emotionally the strongest because they can hear a lot of insults and keep on moving. Earth signs are the same, they are objective and don't get their feelings hurt as easily. Fire signs can get egotistical and confrontational except a Leo will hold a grudge.

Water signs take everything personally but on a tough exterior, deep down they are the most emotionally unstable. Don't mean to hurt your feelings either since you are a Scorpio that larps as a Capricorn.

Click to expand...

Idk I'm a leo moon and I resonate a lot more with my moon than my capricorn sun, and I can tell you I take to heart certain things, and I do cry a lot inside and out haha. It's the same with most Leos and Leo moons I know. Water signs imo are much more well equipped to deal with emotional situations , because they actually know how to deal with their emotions.

And idk where you got I'm a Scorpio,I'm a capricorn , last I checked 22 Dec was a capricorn. The only thing I have in Scoprio is my Venus and NN. Now I get why someone asked me if you accused me of lying for my sun sign. Totally missed that. Why do you think I'd like about my sun sign hahaha this is too funny! I'd have loved to be a Scorpio

I agree also Leo is as ambitious as Capricorn. I give that to the fact those signs are inconjunct. I feel like signs inconjunct look a lot alike. It's like they have the same end goal, just using different methods.

Come to the defense of water signs but never address a "Capricorn with a Leo moon" said a fire sign is weak, oh when the bias comes to light.

Water signs are emotionally the weakest, they deal in emotions. Now don't get me wrong, anyone can overcome their weaknesses and become a stronger version of themselves but by nature water signs are emotionally the most unstable. There is a reason FBI studies have shown that Cancers dominate all signs when it comes to crime, most crimes being committed due to their emotional instability.

I can easily name a lot of powerful Leos myself but obviously, pro-astrologers these days have it out for fire signs and say nonsense such as calling them emotionally weak pushovers.

It always gets me how astrologers loosely call a Leo emotionally insecure and desperate for attention but never say the same about a Scorpio who is probably far more insecure and desperate for validation, hence its bitter nature.

As for Capricorn, I have to say, as much as I dislike individuals from that sign (actual Capricorns, not those who pretend to be), I do admire their work ethic and a Mars in Capricorn is **** formidable (unlike a pushover Scorpio Mars).

Why do you think I pretend to be a capricorn ?? 😂😂😂😂 This is too funny I swear.

I'm not biased towards anything, I'm just speaking from experience. You can't judge a sun sign or a moon sign and call everyone biased . It's opinions. Everyone has them including you. I don't feel emotionally strong as a Leo moon. I have a friend for example who is cancer moon, and yeah she might cry now and then but at least she releases those emtoions. I on the other hand pile up and pretend nothing happened till I explode lol. All I'm saying is water signs have better coping mechanism.

Now go back to you explaining why the hell you think I'd pretend to be a sign that I'm not.

In the Aquarian age, Leo is the opposite of what our current society's morals, ethos and values are. We want peace, equality, social justice, advancement of women, secular humanism and democracy - all are Aquarian traits opposite Leo's own about war, monarchy, male dominance, elitism, religion and privilege for a few, these were very common values in ancient civilizations. And the empowering "alpha" sun rules Leo vs. eccentric "beta" Uranus rules Aquarius.