Historical mundane astrology has played a foundational role in astrological tradition, yet remains marginal within published astrological research. This review surveys the existing literature, distinguishing between exploratory approaches that use astrology to understand history and critical studies that attempt to test astrological claims using historical data. The exploratory literature, most notably the work of Richard Tarnas and André Barbault, shows how astrology can function as an interpretive framework for history, organising historical developments around recurring temporal patterns, while also leaving open important questions about how such interpretations should be evaluated. The growing body of critical research, in contrast, seeks to formalise and evaluate astrological claims against historical datasets, revealing both promising methodological innovations and persistent challenges. By placing explorative and data-driven approaches in dialogue, this paper clarifies both what historical mundane astrology has already accomplished and what would be required for its claims about collective history to be assessed more rigorously.