A Question on leadership on Scorpio and Leo

Darth MI

I notice a tendency for modern astrology books to describe Scorpio and Leos as leadership signs. Even more serious books that studies the entire natal chart rather than just sun signs describe Leo as "king of the Zodiac".

You may remember my thread on Aries discipline .

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=213061


When I was getting into astrology beyond mere sun signs and was reading on the nature of the cardinal mode and Aries and Cancer were the cardinals of their elements and had ideal qualities to be leaders, I was very shocked. Its become such a popular stereotype that Scorpios and (ESPECIALLY) Leo are the leaders of the zodiac alongside Capricorn, Libra, and Aquarius, that people getting deep into astrological concepts such as inconjunction and midpoints cannot comprehend why its Cancer and Aries who are traditionally the leaders of their respective elements and not Leo and Scorpio.

Especially Aries because of their stereotypical impulsive nature (go read my link on Aries discipline above for more details). As seen in my Aries discipline thread (and I also notice when I published the same thread on other sites this patten), people seem to think Leos are the most disciplined of the fire signs because of their concern of keeping a high their obsession over their public image and the fact Leo is associated with kings and regality. It is this same aristocratic image of Leo and their high maintenance of their rep that is precisely why Leos are stereotyped as the leadership of fire signs and even king of the zodiac.

As a matter of fact my last thread I the Aries thread I linked above I was precisely pointing out another repeated statement by someone who believe Leo is the most disciplined because their image-weary nature and Aries is the least disciplined of the zodiac is plain out wrong and is based on a superficial understanding of Aries (and to a lesser extent Leo).


Scorpios are seen as the leaders of the zodiac because of their association with the military and their seemingly cold stoic nature that keeps cool under pressure and last but not least their sexy rugged individualist badboy image.

Seriously people cannot believe cardinal (associated with leadership) signs include not Scorpio and Leo but rather Aries and Cancer. They cannot believe Cancer with its stay-at-home and softspoken mellow nature as well as clingliness cardinal quality and not Scorpio. Scorpio because of their association with soldiering is seen as having the inherent qualities to be a great leader. But not Cancer. Last but not least Scorpio is so associated with the "survivor" image that the popular perception is if the apocalypse happens only Scorpios have the necessary knowledge to be able to unite the remaining living populace and lead them to survive under the new nuclear wasteland. Not lying it goes as far as many popular media icons and references even describes Scorpions for survivors in apacolyptic worlds! Just see the various factions with "Scorpion" in their title in Fallout. Cancer is seen as so meek and gentle so much casual astrologers fail to comperehend how Cancer would have the skills to lead others when **** hits the fan as they call it in survivalism.

Moreso with Aries because of their stereotypical image of impulsiveness and recklessness and jock-like mentality (go read my Aries thread, I won't put anymore details). Leo is also so associated with socializing, fun, and charminess no one can believe Aries (stereotyped as being fighters and loving violence) can ever have the charisma to make lots of friends who will follow them to the death. Leo is most associated with deathless friendship.

In fact its gotten so inherent Scorpio and Leo=leadership that many books nowadays state Scorpios and Scorpios make some of the best politicians alongside Capricorn and Leos are often associated with business CEOs and entrepreneurs!

I already understand to an extent why Aries and Cancer are the leaders (this is for another thread). But I am looking for clarification why traditional astrology texts does not consider Scorpio and Leo as ideal leaders. If anything because of their fixed nature old astrology texts considers them as followers lacking initiatives!

What does traditional astrological symbols describe Scorpio and Leo as far as politics and business goes? Both signs are seen as the embodiment of skilled politicians and I already mentioned how Leo is seen as synonymous with CEO and business owner.

What exactly does Leo and Scorpio lacks in order to be "leaders" or "cardinal" as astrologer phrases? Leo is seen as a charmy socializer and Scorpio is often stereotyped as a battle hardened soldier and survivor of life or death calamities like being stuck in the wilderness for days. In addition Leo is seen as the embodiment of regality and the aristocracy and Scorpio is often shown with Marlon Brando-like sexiness that gets girls to follow him to hell and has such a badboy rugged individualist badass that gets even hardened criminals both scared and impressed in their toes to follow Scorpio without question. Both the aristocratic image and badboy chick magnet are often associated with leadership at least here in the West.

I seen so many casual astrologers and enthusiast go as far as stating they should switch it around and give Leo and Scorpio status of "Cardinal signs" of their respective elements because such is their reputation in modern astrology as leaders.

Why aren't the two signs associated with leadership and why are they fixed? Are modern texts very wrong on the nature of both signs? Just like how I stated in my Aries thread its a strong big myth that Aries are all about impulsiveness and lack any self control whatsoever?

I know the rest of the chart matters but I am curious behind the theory of "cardinal leadership".

Even tarot doesn't put Leo as the Emperor but rather as the Strength card. It instead puts Aries as the Emperor and qualities of the Emperor includes leadership, charisma, and self discipline. Strength is described akin to the stereotypical description of fixed signs, IG they have strong willpower and patience to outlast terrible calamities but strength implies lack of initiative and more of merely following others as well as basic instincts is to outlast the situation rather than taking the initiative to solve it.

Despite their reputation for self control, Scorpio is the Death Card and Cancer is the Temperance card. There is arguments that Cancer represents Chariot instead and Sagittarius represents Temperance but I am just going to use traditional interpretations to KISS.

Rather than describing leadership, Death card is described as destruction and outlasting old cycles and recovering out of them with time and patience. Temperance is described as healing others, creating harmony between conflicting forces, and unification. From what I can infer temperance implies leadership skills. While Death is about change, much of it is about outlasting and even participating in the destruction to bring about change and regeneration after the destruction will take some time. Death does come out as fixed to me.

The Emperor's description is someone of authority with the initiative to change all that is around him.

To state it again Emperor=Aries and Strength=Leo. Temperance=Cancer and Death=Scorpio.

How does the above tarot interpretations of the signs come off? Do they match Scopio and Leo and explain their fixed nature? I know its sort off-topic but much of my understanding on the zodiac has come from conjoining tarot and astrology together and it sort of makes sense when I compare texts why Cancer is cardinal but Scorpio is not despite being reputated as politician,etc.
 

Kristyjnh

I had seen The Chariot associated with Cancer. I think there's a thread about it somewhere here... The Chariot and the astro sign Cancer -- huh? and The Chariot as Cancer (Waite-Smith).

Personally, Leo is not a leader to me (although that's probably in large part thanks to my mom - Leo ASC and Leo SUN). They're (In my experience, and I'm not just talking about my mom) flakey, disorganized, and generally undisciplined. Almost all the strong Leo people I've known have been very creative, and artsy, and People-people. Easy to chat with, and attracting others to them. Not the kind of people who get stuff done though.

Aries on the other hand, named after the Greek God of war, is to me the MOST leader-y of the Zodiac. Yes aggressive, but is able to bark orders and know what needs to be said to motivate. His association with the Emperor speaks for itself, I think.

I don't have a lot of experience with Scorpio - only one friend with lots of Scorpio (Almost all her signs are in Scorpio and Capricorn) and she could not have less to do with leading. But that's only one individual so I can't draw any inferences from it.