The Practical Utility of the Triplicity Scheme

1
It seems to me that there was an odd fixation on triplicity schemes around the medieval period that didn’t exist during Hellenistic phase of astrological development. I have only been practicing (seriously) for a year, and haven’t had the time to assess the predictive viability of triplicity lords (and their corresponding effects on dignity) vs most other established predictive techniques (which I am quite familiar with).

I have a general aversion to medieval and Arabic astrology on the basis that there seems to have been a heavy orientation toward quantitative rather than qualitative astrological assessment, which I think is inappropriate given the medium. The planetary joys though of course predate this fixation, and so I wonder if I’m tossing the baby out with the bath water.

I am curious to hear people’s experiences with these in delineation, as well as whether or not it takes primacy over other techniques as a tool in your predictive arsenal, and if so why.

Re: The Practical Utility of the Triplicity Scheme

3
I, too, dislike overly quantitative methods. But the idea of a sharp distinction between late ancient and medieval astrology is something of a modern myth. Regarding triplicity rulers, Dorotheus is well-known for using them for everything, and Valens uses them quite a bit. The triplicities as such belong to the prehoroscopic, Babylonian period, though their planetary rulerships presumably came later.

I have only really used triplicity rulers (of the sect luminary) for determining status/eminence, and find them fairly reliable indicators, though not the only ones. But I work in a non-tropical zodiac (as did Dorotheus, Valens, and the early Perso-Arabic astrologers), so the rulers I use will often be different from what a tropicalist does.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/