As NASA pointed out in 2016, astrology is bollocks, because the stars' positions have changed in the 3000 or so years of this nonsense, ...
Actually a little less than 2000 years, the time since Claudius Ptolemy published his astrology classic
Tetrabiblos ("Four Books"), around 150 CE. But it's almost enough time for the Earth to precess through an entire sign.
Ptolemy gets picked on a lot for advocating geocentrism, but I find it hard to hold that against him. There wasn't much back then that clearly indicated heliocentrism. But he was a very good astronomer, and his astronomy book
Almagest was a classic.
It is hard for me to think of any big temporal landmark near 150 CE, something that would mark that date out as a big reference date. I especially don't see how the publication of
Tetrabiblos would qualify as such a landmark.
While Western astrology has ignored precession, Indian astrology takes it into account. Thus in Western astrology, Aries starts on March 21, and in Indian astrology, it starts on April 14. Indian astrology is a ripoff of Western astrology, complete with the same signs of the Zodiac. Indian astrology also adds the Moon's orbit nodes to the planets.
Why might orbit nodes be significant? The Moon's ascending and descending nodes are where the Moon goes northward and southward across the Earth's orbit plane. This is significant because the Moon only makes eclipses or suffers them when it is near one of its orbit nodes. Otherwise, the Earth and the Moon escape each other's shadows.
There is a further problem. How successful have astrologers been at resolving discrepancies? A precessing zodiac vs. a fixed zodiac is an obvious one, with a big problem for a fixed zodiac being what time to fix it at. Between Western and Indian astrology there is the problem of the Moon's nodes. If they have an effect, that means that ignoring them would cause unmodeled effects, and Western astrologers ought to have identified them. If they don't, then Indian astrologers ought to have noticed that omitting them causes better-fitting predictions.
Then, of course, there are the planets discovered in recent centuries. Why didn't astrologers predict them from unmodeled effects?