Skyscript Astrology Forum

Paul, Deb has asked us not to repeat ourselves, or veer off the OP topic. Replying to your detailed points therefore puts me in a bit of a quandary. Mercury retrograde must be afoot for my points to appear so untenable!

(Deb, if you are reading this post, it does not digress much from the OP, but it lays track for the respective points about Uranus that Mark, Paul, and I have been making.)

How Hellenistic Astrology Informs Contextualizing Uranus

My personal focus on Hellenistic astrology hardly precludes others' approaches from different periods. I encourage them! We've had perspectives from Cayce, Tarnas, Greene, and others on this thread. I see some irony in being questioned on a traditional astrology forum for discussing a form of astrology that is decidedly less modern than the versions which followed it. I've been exploring the precursors to Hellenistic horoscopic astrology in Babylon, Egypt, and Greece, so I concur that the Hellenists did not invent a lot of "Hellenistic astrology."

However, some of their work opens a methodological window (for considering Uranus) that narrows once certain astrological beliefs and practices become codified. More Uranian, further, is the possibility that it is OK today to think about essential dignities and debilities in new ways without violating their ancient structure.

We cannot describe the Hellenistic body of work as monolithic. It is not. It doesn't have "the tradition," but multiple authors, extant or cited, who do not all point to the same thing. Traditional authors of the past navigated between sources that they followed and sources that they did not follow. (Cf. Deb's interesting work on Egyptian vs. Chaldean terms.) They did use all of the planets they could see in their telescope-free era, and also considered celestial phenomena (like the colour of eclipses and types of comets) that are seldom used in traditional astrology today.

We can follow their flexible example.

Manilius in the 1st century wrote poetically about signs at war with one another. However, Leo and Aquarius share traits in common. Both are fixed, masculine, barren signs, for example. Rhetorius rhetorically positioned the sun in Leo contra the Saturn-ruled signs as symbolizing light and darkness-- so by his rationale, astronomical Uranus should be even darker and colder than Saturn, and thus a decent match with Aquarius.

My point about exaltations is that we can look to traditional authors who do not mention planets in fall; or who mention just a single degree for a planet's exaltation or fall. Some signs (like my candidate Aquarius) have no planets in exaltation or fall. So a Hellenistic methodology offers this precedent for working with Uranus outside of some important essential dignities. Maybe we want to pit restrictive Author A against inclusive Author B, but that would take us off-topic. One can use a modern planet without violating the time-honoured structure in this one regard.

Logic, fallacy, and how to situate Uranus

The argument from distance to the sun. I had actually never heard of this schema for the outers until after I had been working with Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for many years. Pragmatist that I am, I don't buy it because I think Scorpio and Pluto are a terrific fit; and distance is irrelvant to using the modern outers as affinity-based sign rulers in this one narrow sense. Distance does affect orbital periods, which is relevant.

Planet affinities to sub-sign units such as terms. This argument cuts both ways. I do not argue for Uranus-Aquarius based upon terms and faces, &c!! I merely point out why the argument that Aries is the necessary fit with a Mars- or sun-like planet has contradictions within the essential dignities-- assuming this is even a valid comparison for a modern planet.

Comparing Uranus to fixed stars This was Mark's point. I think the analogy is, that if a fixed star can be given the nature of "Venus and Saturn" (Tetrabiblos I.9) then he doesn't confuse the planet Uranus with a fixed star, but thinks the planet comparisons might be a useful model for conceptualizing Uranus.

Finally and unfortunately, I can't cite all pertinent references on a forum post intended as a discussion, not a research paper. Valens came to hand first. That's all-- but he is known as the practicing "astrologer's astrologer."

I'll get to your second post to me soon.

Mark wrote: More fundamentally, because the first issue is not sign association but the quality of Uranus. There is no point suggesting a planetary nature of an outer planet if we cannot agree on its basic quality much less a sign association.

If I was starting this thread again I would reformulate the topic to something like ?What is the quality of Uranus??

One seemingly endemic quality it has become associated with is this ''sudden change'' notion. Which might be a logical link to Uranus, some irony here for those who perceive Uranus as associated with Aquarius yet also fundamentally about logic and systems , becoming linked to Aries in a few, perhaps many, minds.

Question for me is how and why did, in some schemas, such a slow moving transpersonal/collective/generational planet become linked to abrupt, even unexpected, events (inner and/or outer).

Waybread wrote:

Comparing Uranus to fixed stars This was Mark's point. I think the analogy is, that if a fixed star can be given the nature of "Venus and Saturn" (Tetrabiblos I.9) then he doesn't confuse the planet Uranus with a fixed star, but thinks the planet comparisons might be a useful model for conceptualizing Uranus.

The problem with this analogy is that outer planets are 'invisible points' in traditional terms. The fixed stars seem to have acquired their planetary associations from their apparent colour to naked eye observers. Hence reddish looking stars like Aldebaran were 'of the nature Mars.'

Perhaps a better analogy would be the nodes. These are invisible points. The south node is seen in medieval tradition as of the nature of Mars+Saturn while the north node of the nature of Jupiter+Venus.

As with the nodes, the planetary nature of the outer planets has to be decided by their observed effects. Any traditionalist wanting to understand Uranus would first want to establish the quality of Uranus before getting into an assumed planetary nature.

On the other hand a lot of traditionalists may prefer the example of fixed stars for the explicit reason that they are not seen to have planetary dispositors while nodes do.

Mark

Nixx wrote:

Question for me is how and why did, in some schemas, such a slow moving transpersonal/collective/generational planet become linked to abrupt, even unexpected, events (inner and/or outer).

Good question. One obvious explanation is that the discovery of Uranus in 1781 fell right between the outbreak of the American (1776) and French Revoultions (1789). I have heard modern astrologers use this argument a lot but did the 19th century astrologers really formulate their view of Uranus that way?

Alternatively, was this based on more empirical observation of the effects of Uranus in specific charts?

In her article 'When and why did Uranus become associated with Aquarius'' Kim Farnell cites a specific incident that seems to have led John Varley to attribute Uranus to a sudden dramatic event due to its placement in a chart configuration.

http://skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html

According to Farnell, Varley was probably the first astrologer to definitely link Uranus to Aquarius. So did his views about Uranus being linked to sudden change influence the rest of the astrological community in the 19th century? Judging by some of the other astrologers quoted by Farnell the issue is not so clear cut. The issue probably requires more thorough investigation of those sources.

Anyway this is a quote from Farnell's article on Varley's 'discovery' of the astrological effect of Uranus.

An article in the Occult Review of July 1916 entitled 'Some Astrological Predictions of the Late John Varley by his grandson, John Varley', offers a clue. The article gives the story of a number of predictions made by Varley and what actually transpired.

He was... in the habit of consulting his own horoscope each morning, and bringing up directions etc. On one particular morning... he was evidently ill at ease and though he had an appointment, he did not go out; and about 11 in the forenoon he gave his watch to my father, telling him to take it to a watchmaker in Regent Street and have it set to Greenwich time... he explained that there were some evil aspects in his horoscope, which would come into operation a few minutes to twelve that day. He was so certain as to the evil effects that he might not go out, fearing some street accident. He said, 'I might be run over, or a slate might fall on my head.', that he was uncertain whether his life or his property was menaced, but he saw in the figure that it would be sudden. The difficulty arose from the fact that the effects of the planet Uranus were not yet understood by astrologers, and his agitation increased as the time approached. He asked if my father was sure that his watch was put to Greenwich time and complained that he could not go on with his work. Sitting down, he said two or three times, 'I feel quite well, there is nothing wrong with me. I am not going to have a fit or anything of the sort.' Then, rising from his seat he came to my father saying, 'What is it to be? The time is passed. Could I have made some mistake in my calculations?' He took some paper and a pencil to go through the figures again - just then there was a cry of fire from the street. He rapidly made a note in his astrological book as to the effects of Uranus. The house was burned down, all his property was destroyed, and unfortunately he was uninsured...

Interestingly, Uranus is linked to an outbreak of fire here......

It would be interesting to study the actual chart configuration Varley was looking at for that day.

Mark

(continued from my previous post)

Mark, if you've dumped the idea of a strong Uranus-Aries sign affiliation, then let me thank you again for a most stimulating thread, and just tidy up with some replies to Paul's second post to me, with a later reply to your latest.

Uranus in logical argument

1. Syllogism. I personally find it very helpful, to get under the hood of an argument through looking at its logical structure in a kind of template form. Finding any sylllogisms is one way. I agree perfectly that, "Stating that Uranus is comparable to Mars is not a syllogism." No, it's not! It could be the first proposition in a three-part syllogism, however: the A=C opening statement. (The other two being, B=A, so B=C. This is true only if the comparisons are failsafe. I've argued that they are not in the case of planetary comparisons.)

Deb has warned us against excessive repetition on this thread, so let me simply suggest that you may have misunderstood my posts where I tried to unpack the argument based upon planetary similarities, and that you reconsider my points in their totality.

2. Analogy Astrology has all kinds of reasoning by analogy! If someone finds a particular metaphor helpful, that's great. But then we just have to confirm that the metaphor is an apt comparison with what is actually going on.

Now that we're on page 12 (and counting!) I'd have to go back and check, but I believe Mark's point was that there are some sun-Uranus comparisons that favour Aries as a better match for Uranus than Aquarius, such as the sun being exalted in Aries and domiciled in Leo, the sign opposite Aquarius. My point was that this only works if all of the points about the sun are accepted. Otherwise were into "all swans are white" terrain.

Oh, fer sure Mark didn't argue from triplicites, &c. My point being different: that we cannot take planet-sign affinities and aversions too far, because they do not work at all levels of essential dignities.

All you're really pointing out is that planets and signs can connect in many ways. We know that already surely?

One would hope.

3. Circular reasoning comes up with the problem of assuming a Uranus-Aquarius rulership by virtue of defining Aquarius post hoc according to the characteristics of Uranus. Of course, we could apply this to other sign-planet affiliations, as well.

Certainly, we should go back and see how Aquarius was defined prior to the discovery of Uranus. Aquarius is a fixed air sign. The sun falls in Aquarius in traditional astrology today.

In previous posts I discussed the affinity of Aquarius to mental, even intellectual endeavours; such as science and political ideologies (on the left and right.) I noted how Uranus deals with far more than "sudden disruption," and that initiating change is not restricted to cardinal signs. Putting a man on the moon or above ground in Kitty Hawk (aviation)--which even some traditional astrologers associate with Uranus-- is consistent with Aquarius's traditional fixity of intellectual purpose, however. The sun's fall in Aquarius gels with the concept of Aquarius as a social sign.

Paul, the last part of your post seemingly agrees with what I actually wrote.

mercury went retro back on feb 6th or thereabouts.. this is not some new info fwiw!

one idea i have for starting a new thread is touched on in some comments which i would like to address which is the idea of planets verses signs and how a planet expresses itself differently then a sign.. as a matter of fact, i am confused about this and am interested in others thoughts on how they see it.. for me - the planet is the energy and the sign is just the backdrop that picks up the energy.. don't bother responding.. i will start a new thread expressing this same idea...

now to nixx question - why if uranus is such a slow moving planet, did it get connected to sudden change? great question and one i have pondered.. i came to the conclusion that it had to do with the fact that uranus rolls on it's belly, which are my terms for an unique astronomical characteristic of uranus different from the other planets as i understand it.. i could be mistaken, but that is my understanding of how uranus behaves differently.. someone with better linguistic and astronomical understanding can surely explain it much better then i.. thanks -

Hi, Mark-- I agree with much of what you say in your first long post to me.

Just one reply to your point on the politically conservative nature of Uranus or Aquarius in some horoscopes. Obviously we could find one or the other or both! But it is reasonable, at some point, to hitch up two horses and see how they pull in tandem. Again, there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem. If I do not discuss the two together, I fail to make my case. If I do discuss them together, I am liable to the charge of conflating their natures. (Not a problem arising, apparently with a discussion of Uranus and Aries??!)

We can see highly conservative people who at the same time challenge the status quo if they percieve it as too liberal, godless, or dictatorial. The shoe is on this other foot in American politics today, with the right-wing libertarian Tea Party movement claiming that they are the "rebels" challenging the evils of Washington, D. C.

If you are not interested in seeing how I read charts with Uranus and Aquarius "pulling" together, then it will be harder to make a case for you. but I would encourage you to consider the chart of Sarah Palin, conservative politician turned public speaker:
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Palin,_Sarah (Rodden DD, so we'll skip the houses.)

Palin has 5 planets in Aquarius, including her sun and moon, so her Aquarian credentials are solid. This is one chart where I would see Saturn and Uranus working simultaneously: Uranus disrupts the leftist status quo, while Saturn prefers the "good old days," whatever those supposedly meant. I find her personality to be quirky, and she wrote a best-selling book called Going Rogue which sounds much more Uranian than Saturnine to me. She is not a revolutionary although she is pro-gun lobby.

By "democrats" I believe you would include the Republican party?

Mark, I don't think Uranus and Aquarius are synonymous, either! Planets are not signs. I believed that we were discussing affinities between them.

Bottom line: "sudden change" or disruption is only one trait of Uranus. There are others shouldn't be written out of its script.

Perhaps I should also reiterate that I didn't invent the Uranus-Aquarius relationship. I cut my astro-teeth on it, however, and it seems to have worked out fine in practice for the majority of modern astrologers for the past half-century or so.

James-- I suggest that a planet is the "what" or like a noun in a sentence. The sign shows "how" or "in what manner" a planet operates: like an adjective or adverb.

waybread wrote:Paul, Deb has asked us not to repeat ourselves, or veer off the OP topic. Replying to your detailed points therefore puts me in a bit of a quandary. Mercury retrograde must be afoot for my points to appear so untenable!

Right I feel the same way, but you still repeat your argument by focusing most paritcularly on hellenistic doctrine when hoping to, as you put it, weaken my argument about Uranus and my disinclination to associate it with Aquarius, so it I find myself compelled to continuously remind you that Hellenistic doctrine alone isn't what leads me to that conclusion.

Let's hopefully agree, from your last post, that Hellenistic astrology is not the only way of examining planetary affinity to a sign then, in which case your counter arguments which plead to Hellensitic doctrine alone (by hoping to abandon fall/detriment), fail to impress substance. It might be worth creating another thread to examine dignity in the Hellenistic doctrine as you've made some interesting points and some which I'd disagree with but do not want to derail this focus any further by offering examples of fall and the implication of detriment from hellenistic authors.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post regarding astrology not being monolithic and for the hellenistic doctrine providing context. The problem I have is that you seem contradictory with it - you argue that we ought to look to the Hellenistic doctrine for understanding planet-sign affinity and yet in the next breath express a lot of concern for the domicile scheme as outlined by Ptolemy. As I have said pages ago, if we want to examine this all from purely Hellenistic perspectives then we ought to recognise Uranus as having association, even if we do not want to call it domicile dignity, with Aquarius (and capricorn) and so on for the other planets, which puts Pluto as being aligned with Scorpio, yes, but also Aries. If you're happy to deviate from that, then you're happy to deviate from Hellenistic doctrine - and hey, so am I. Otherwise I can't help but think that we ought only to strictly look at Hellenistic doctrine if and when it suits your position.

Hopefully we can put this to bed now and not need to repeat our arguments endlessly.

My point was that this only works if all of the points about the sun are accepted. Otherwise were into "all swans are white" terrain.

Right but the logical fallacy isn't the syllogism it is the falsifiability of the premise. I don't know if Mark was the one to make those points, certainly I remember doing so myself. My point was that when we 'warn' Mark about logical fallacy we must first check that a fallacy has occurred. It's better then to cite the fallacy, explain why it is, necessarily (without personal judgement) logically infallible. Otherwise all we have is a premise and a conclusion based on that premise. Nothing illogical about this whatsoever. If X, then Y. You can then demonstrate that X is not true, if you feel so. But it is not a logical fallacy to make syllogism. If Mark has said X, and X is something you know, logically, to be untrue, then we should focus on that. Otherwise the implication of the potential of a fallacy seems too easily confused for there actually being one.

My point being different: that we cannot take planet-sign affinities and aversions too far, because they do not work at all levels of essential dignities.

But isn't this a strawman? Counter arguing a point never actually made by anyone but you? Mark hasn't said that this works for all dignities, in fact, hasn't said that Uranus and Aries are a dignity at all. Therefore building up and tearing down your own argument and juxtaposing it against Mark just seems odd, it becomes a strawman, though I suspect you do not mean to do this deliberately and merely "thinking aloud".

Certainly, we should go back and see how Aquarius was defined prior to the discovery of Uranus. Aquarius is a fixed air sign. The sun falls in Aquarius in traditional astrology today.

I am glad you agree, presumably you now recognise that nobody is damning you if you do and damning you if you don't. There is no catch 22 here.

I noted how Uranus deals with far more than "sudden disruption," and that initiating change is not restricted to cardinal signs.

No, but then people who have Mercury in Gemini are not the only ones who are gifted with speech. The question isn't whether change is restricted to cardinal signs, indeed nobody has argued that whatsoever, the fact however is that in astrology (at least the tradition of astrology) change is indeed associated with cardinal signs, there is a sense of impermanence to them. Just as speech is not restricted to Gemini, neither is change restricted to cardinal signs, and yet speech is more strongly associated with Gemini than, perhaps, other signs, and similarly change is more strongly associated with cardinal signs, than, say, fixed and mutable. By the way, I associate Uranus mostly with sudden change, not necessarily disruption, though the two probably go hand in hand. For example technological innovation may be a sudden change, though it doesn't carry the connotations of a disruption.

james wrote:the idea of planets verses signs and how a planet expresses itself differently then a sign.. as a matter of fact, i am confused about this and am interested in others thoughts on how they see it.. for me - the planet is the energy and the sign is just the backdrop that picks up the energy.

Though I do want to stay outside of the discussion (as much as I can) - to add to James' comment, it has occurred to me several times that, to my understanding, this perceived 'affinity' with Aries is relevant, but no more important than it is to note how every planet shifts its emphasis/quality as it passes through different signs. Uranus can be volatile, so when it is in a fiery sign disposed by Mars I would expect that its ability to signify bombs and explosive situations is heightened, for example, whereas other signs will heighten the emphasis of other Uranus themes.

Mark wrote: I think I already stated I had come to accept Deb?s point that sign association was really a red herring. Not just because it muddles ideas of traditional dignity. More fundamentally, because the first issue is not sign association but the quality of Uranus. There is no point suggesting a planetary nature of an outer planet if we cannot agree on its basic quality much less a sign association.

Mark, I too accept a lot of Deb's point, but I personally still think we can make comparisons between planets and signs based on some shared affinity for symbolism. That said I think James has made a good point, or rather a good question, regarding isolating that symbolism between planetary expression and sign associations (Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:16 am).

For me, the more interesting question isn't so much whether we associate an outer planet with a sign, and more about, whether we do or don't, what we actually do with that information. I do not recognise modern rulerships. As soon as I started to learn horary I began learning traditional astrology generally and recognised quickly that what I thought I understood by rulership was actually not what it implied within horary or traditional approaches to astrology, and I began to realise that modern rulerships are actually understood, in some way, along the thinking (even if not exactly the same) as the astrological alphabet. Pluto is like Scorpio is like the 8th house. This is different to the thinking of traditional astrologers. Therefore, I agree with whomever says that we ought not to start associating signs with outer planets if, by that association, we imply a kind of dignity or attempt to shoehorn the traditional approach to dignities onto it. So, therefore, let's not do that. We can still recognise something of the same kind of 'keywords' between Uranus and Aries, and we get back to Curtis (via Bernadatte Brady) of what we call that association then, and, for me more importantly, what do we do with it? How is it useful information? Do we suggest Uranus operates better in Aries, in which case we need to know what we mean by that, does it do Uranus things more Uranus-like (as per modern astrology) or show a more dignified and less malefic timbre to its signification (like in traditional astrology) or is it neither, and simply an association that is absent of real practical interpretive value?

Having had this aries-uranus (etc.) idea for a while, I'm disinclined to see it that Uranus operates in a more dignified way in Aries, therefore I do not believe this affinity, if there is one, is in any way related to the dignity scheme, and is, for me, more useful in simply recognising that the symbolism of the two overlap and so when, for example as is happening, Uranus transits Aries we can expect a great deal of symoblism associated with their shared meaning. For me, this means a sense of fighting back, a sense of rejection of the normative values around us, but in an often passionate and violent way. It is a a divide between social structures and the clashing that results from it. I think the London 'student' riots and so on are a great example of this, as are the whistleblower types who display a fighting back at inequality via technology etc. at least within mundane astrology.
So then does it really matter if we see affinity between planet and sign? Probably not. This is why I am not all that invested in convincing anyone else of the idea, ultimately I'm not sure how practically useful it is to begin with, other than as perhaps a mnemonic or as a thought experiment.

Ultimately we cannot escape the notion that actually you and I are probably talking cross purposes with others (Waybread included) because really you and I are not trying to talk about essential dignity, and I think that for modern astrologers the whole concept is too tied up with the idea of rulership that it becomes impossible or at least incredibly difficult to separate.
I think the better question then is, let's say that you do associate Uranus and Aries - what would you do with it?

Ultimately I think seeing Uranus as an alloy of the Sun and Mars is more practically useful than necessarily associating it with any sign, it's just, at least for me, something about that merging of symbolism really lends itself well to similar keywords with Aries.

Deb wrote:

.... to add to James' comment, it has occurred to me several times that, to my understanding, this perceived 'affinity' with Aries is relevant, but no more important than it is to note how every planet shifts its emphasis/quality as it passes through different signs. Uranus can be volatile, so when it is in a fiery sign disposed by Mars I would expect that its ability to signify bombs and explosive situations is heightened, for example, whereas other signs will heighten the emphasis of other Uranus themes.

Yes. I actually raised the point earlier in the thread that I thought the shifting planetary dispositors of the outer planets were significant. Understanbly though the topic I used inevitably got us involved in the controversy of supposed sign associations and rulerships.

I am very interested to see that you do think the outers can have planetary dispositors ( like other planets and nodes or lots).

I examined some key events against the location of Uranus and its dispositor. These might be of interest.

221 BCE Founding of Ch'in dynasty of China, which ruled from 221 B.C. to 206 B.C. The word China is derived from Ch'in, the first dynasty to unify the country by conquering the warring feudal states of the late Chou period. King Cheng took the title Shih Huang-ti or Shi Huangdi [ first august emperor ] in 221 B.C. and began to consolidate the new empire. Uranus in Leo.

206 BCE The Han Dynasty (206 BC ? 220 AD) was an imperial dynasty of China, preceded by the Qin Dynasty (221?207 BC) and succeeded by the Three Kingdoms (220?280 AD). It was founded by the rebel leader Liu Bang, known posthumously as Emperor Gaozu of Han. Spanning over four centuries, the period of the Han Dynasty is considered a golden age in Chinese history.To this day, China's majority ethnic group refers to itself as the "Han people" and the Chinese script is referred to as "Han characters". Uranus in Libra (Venus dispositor)

31BCE Battle of Actium. The decisive confrontation of the Final War of the Roman Republic, a naval engagement between Octavian and the combined forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian's victory enabled him to consolidate his power over Rome and its dominions. Uranus in Scorpio (Mars dispositor).

27BCE Roman Empire founded under Octavian (Emperor Augustus). Uranus in Sagittarius ((Jupiter dispositor)

0581 Sui Dynasty founded. China became politically unified in this empire for the first time in almost 400 years. Empire lasts until the Tang Dynasty in 0618.Uranus in Pisces (Jupiter dispositor)

0618 Tang dynasty founded in China. The essential administrative system of this dynasty lasts for 286 years until 907 CE. A period of great cultural growth. Uranus in Leo (sun dispositor)

0622. Muhammed. Emigration of Muhammed and followers to Medina. First Islamic polity established. (Uranus in Virgo-Mercury dispositor)

0630 Mecca conquered by Muslims in relatively bloodless seizure. Uranus in Libra (Venus dispositor)

0711 Muslim Armies invade Spain. Uranus in Virgo (Mercury dispositor)

0732 Battle of Tours Frankish leader Charles Martel defeated an invading Islamic army near the city of Tours, France. This battle halted for good the northward advance of Islam into Europe and preserved Christianity as the dominant faith on the continent. Uranus in Sagittarius. (Jupiter dispositor)

0750 Founding of the Abbasid Caliphate. Uranus in Pisces (Jupiter dispositor)

0755 An Lushan Rebellion against Tang Dynasty. This major rebellion lasted from 755-763. it greatly weakened the Tang dynasty and impoverished the Empire. Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

0907 Tang Dynasty ends with Emperor Ai deposed. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period in China commences. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1066 Battle of Hastings. William of Normandy defeats the Anglo-Saxon King Harold. The Norman conquest of England begins. Uranus in Sagittarius (Jupiter dispositor)

1096. First Crusade. Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1146. Second Crusade. Uranus in Sagittarius (Jupiter dispositor)

1258 The sacking Baghdad, by Ilkhanate Mongol forces and allied troops. The sacking of the city was brutal and entailed great loss of life. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad brought the Abbasid Caliphate to an end.
Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1260 The Battle of Ain Jalut . A pivotal battle in world history between Muslim Mamluks and the Mongols in the southeastern Galilee. The battle marked the first time a Mongol advance had ever been permanently beaten back in direct combat on the battlefield. The Mongols were unable to advance into Egypt and they were never able to reverse this defeat.
Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1314 The Battle of Bannockburn. The battle was a significant Scottish victory in the Wars of Scottish Independence. The battle was decisive in establishing de facto Scottish independence from English rule. Uranus in Sagittarius (Jupiter dispositor)

1389 The Battle of Kosovo, the Battle of Blackbird's Field. Final defeat of independent Serbia by Ottoman Army. Uranus in Scorpio (Mars dispositor)

1429. Joan of Arc's Victory over the English at Orl?ans, (Uranus in Aries. Mars dispositor)

1453: Fall of Byzantium. Uranus in Cancer (Moon dispositor)

1469: Union of Crowns of Castile and Aragon to form first united Spanish Kingdom Uranus in Libra (Venus dispositor)

1492. Columbus discovers Americas. Fall of Grenada. Last Islamic Kingdom in Spain. Uranus in Capricorn: Saturn dispositor.

1517. Luther begins Protestant Reformation in Europe. Uranus in Taurus (Venus dispositor)

1588 English Defeat of Spanish Armada. Uranus in Pisces. Jupiter dispositor.

1618. Thirty Years War begins. Uranus in Cancer (Moon dispositor)

1642. Beginning of English Civil War: Uranus in Scorpio (Mars dispositor)

1745 Jacobite Rebellion against Hanoverian Kings: Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1776. American Revolution: Uranus in Gemini (Mercury dispositor)

1789 French Revolution: Uranus in Leo (Sun dispositor)

1812. Napoleon invades Russia. Eventual disastrous retreat of Grand Army. Uranus in Scorpio (Mars dispositor)

1815. Napoleon defeated at Waterloo. Uranus in Sagittarius ( Jupiter dispositor)

1846-1848. Mexican-American War: US annexes Texas and other Mexican territory: Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1848. Year of Revolutions (1848): Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1850. Outbreak of Taiping rebellion against Qing Dynasty in China. Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1861 American Civil War: Uranus in Gemini (Mercury dispositor)

1898-99 Spanish-American War -Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philipinnes + Hawaii under US admin. Hawaii annexed 1899. (Uranus in Sagittarius-Jupiter dispositor)

1910 Outbreak of Mexican Revolution. (Uranus in Capricorn-dispositor Saturn)

1911 Chinese Revolution. End of Imperial China. China becomes a Republic. (Uranus in Capricorn-dispositor Saturn)

1914. World War 1: Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor).

1916 Easter rising in Ireland. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor).

1917. US enters WWI: Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1917. Russian Revolution. End of Romanov Dynasty. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1918. Flu Pandemic. 500 million infected. 50-100 million die. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1918-19 German revolution. Kaiser abdicates. End of Imperial Germany. Germany becomes a republic. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

1922 Ireland separates from Britain. Irish free state created. Uranus in Pisces (dispositor Jupiter)

1924. End of Ottoman Empire and Islamic Caliphate.
Uranus in Pisces ( dispositor Jupiter)

1929. Wall Street Crash/Great depression: Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1931. Foundation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Uranus in Aries ) Mars dispositor_

1933. Nazis come to power in Germany: Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

1939. WWII: Uranus in Taurus (Venus dispositor)

1941 Nazi Germany Attack on Soviet Union/Pearl Harbour Attack on USA: Uranus in Taurus (Venus dispositor)

1945. US Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Uranus in Gemini: Mercury dispositor

1945 Creation of U.N. Uranus in Gemini: Mercury dispositor

1947 Indian Partition & Independence. Uranus in Gemini: Mercury dispositor

1948 State of Israel Created. Uranus in Gemini: Mercury dispositor

1949. Communist Revolution in China. Uranus in Cancer (Moon dispositor)

1950 Indian Republic declared. Uranus in Cancer:Moon dispositor

1952 The Egyptian Revolution began on 23 July 1952, with a military coup d'?tat by the Free Officers Movement, a group of army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. The revolution was initially aimed at overthrowing King Farouk.
Uranus in Cancer:Moon dispositor


1956: The Hungarian Revolution, a failed workers' and peasants' revolution against the Soviet-supported communist state in Hungary. Uranus in Leo (Sun dispositor)

1959. Cuban Revolution overthrows dictatorship of Batista: Uranus in Leo (Sun dispositor)

1961 Yuri Gagarin first man in space. Uranus in Leo. (Sun dispositor)

1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Uranus in Virgo: (Mercury dispositor)

1969. First Moon Landing. Uranus in Libra: (Venus dispositor)

1979. Iranian Revolution .Uranus in Scorpio: Mars dispositor

1986 Chernobyl Disaster. Uranus in Sagittarius (Jupiter dispositor)

1990 Outbreak of Yugoslav wars. Leads to break up of entire state in stages (1990-1992). Uranus in Capricorn (Saturn dispositor)

1990-91. End of Soviet Union: Uranus in Capricorn (Saturn dispositor)

1996. Taliban Emirate established in Afghanistan. Uranus in Aquarius (Saturn dispositor)

2001. September 11th attacks. Uranus in Pisces. Jupiter dispositor.

2008. Beginning of Great Recession/Euro crisis: Uranus in Pisces ( Jupiter dispositor)

2011. Japanese Tsunami/Fukushima Nuclear Plant Incident/Syrian Civil war Uranus in Aries (Mars dispositor)

It will be interesting to explore this in terms of environmental and intellectual trends too.

Obviously we should check the condition of the dispositors themselves in these charts. Still I do think this is a more practical way forward for research.

We also we need to look at the aspectual contacts Uranus was making and where it was in longer term cycles.

In terms of its basic nature Uranus certainly does seem very dry to me. In general Uranus and the Moon dont tend to be compatible at all. I have seen this in horary, natal, electional and mundane charts. This would fit with the traditional association of the Moon as a moist planet.

Deb, what do you think of the idea that the planetary phase of Uranus might effect its nature too? Or do you see that as irrelevant for such an invisible point?

Mark

Maybe I can come back to that last point another day Mark, when I have more time. It's something I've thought about a lot and my views are not settled. But generally I don't feel comfortable with the idea, because so much of the notion of phase is based on the shifting quality of light throughout the synodic cycles with the Sun. On the other hand, there is physical light, and celestial light, and one of the things that distinguishes between them is that celestial light (at least as far as medieval philosophers explain it), is not visible as physical light is. But still, it is supposed to accompany physical light, so this is a tricky one. (Celestial light, BTW, is what is said to convey astrological influence, whereas physical light just has the physical effect we associate with sunlight).

Also, to clarify: above I made reference to Mars being the dispositor of Aries - it is only by extension of that principle that I think of it as the dispositor of anything that takes place in Aries. I'm not sure how that could be controversial or unusual.