Arianism and the Arians - what do we know?

[Pied-Noir]

I posted this here because I'm more interested in the history and theology than the gameplay mechanics, but the reason for me asking is that I'd like to add Arianism as a faith in CK III.

Arianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tenet - CK3 Wiki

ck3.paradoxwikis.com

Doctrines - CK3 Wiki

ck3.paradoxwikis.com

In CK III, religions must have three tenets and then various doctrines. My aim is to find out which best fit Arianism.

My understanding is that the Lombards, Goths and Vandals were generally Arian (at least initially), although their practices seem to have differed. For example, Wiki states that whilst the Ostrogoths were much more amiable to living among non-Arians and didn't do much to forcibly convert their subjects, the Vandals were very aggressive with non-Arians and used force conversion, exile, heavy taxation and even dissolution of monasteries.

I'm hazy on the theology here, and the main issue seems to be that Arians viewed God and Christ as two distinct entities; God created or sent Christ and let him be sacrificed, rather than Christ being God Himself in human form. Is that broadly correct?

The question then is - that major theological point aside - to what extent did Arians differ from Nicene/orthodox Christians? What did the two faiths (if we can accept for this premise that they were different faiths) differ on in practical terms? Did Arianism have a pope/patriarch or equivalent, or hope to have one? How much power did the priesthood have?

If you know anything about the CK III religious system then feel free to chip in with relevant suggestions, but otherwise the history and theology are what I'm interested in so as to paint a picture of Arianism and how it could be represented as a distinct faith.

Thank you.

 

[Ming]

I'm hazy on the theology here, and the main issue seems to be that Arians viewed God and Christ as two distinct entities; God created or sent Christ and let him be sacrificed, rather than Christ being God Himself in human form. Is that broadly correct?

I'm interested in so as to paint a picture of Arianism and how it could be represented as a distinct faith.

Thank you.

You have come to the right forum. A helpful Paradoxian has broken it down for you.

History of Monosphyites, Maronites, Nestorians, and Donatists

I have always been confused about the difference of theology between these churches, and their history.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

The youngsters and HOI players may not remember, but this was right up there with the Yardies, the TMI truck, 'This wouldn't be problem in Saudi Arabia' and Blade's grandma as the sort of content that justified Paradox board's existence.

It's a tragedy that not all of the pictures have survived the ravages of time.

@Abdul Goatherd , you should really fix the missing pictures. . . Without Stephen Segal's heavenly and eternally co-mingled visage . . . How am I to judge the theologically correct ratio of horse to human?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I'm kinda scared to touch it. Let me experiment here.

EDIT: OK fixed.

 

[Gurkhal]

I will say now and later again that I am no expert on the subject.

As far as I know the German Arians were not particularly good at converting and the division between Catholics and Arians would seem to be a major obsticle to prevent the incoming Germans and established locals from forming the ethnogensis to new cultural identities in Italy, Spain and Africa. I am not aware of any central Arian ecclestriarchal authority at all so its possible that similar to the later Protestans that the king was also the leader of their national/tribal church.

In regards to the difference between the Vandals and Goths, I am no expert, but I've heard a reason for the harsh treatment by the Vandals were that their entire historical relations with the Romans were through the sword, while the Goths had a much more nuanced experience. Which then formed future interactions to a large degree.

Thus while I can't tell you the details of it, I would say that "Communal Identity" tenet and the "Temporal Head of Faith" doctrine might fit well. At least for the Arian Christianity as it was practiced by Goths and Vandals.

 

[Pied-Noir]

@Gurkhal

Really appreciate your response!

We're thinking along similar lines; I opted for Communal Identity, Adaptive and Unrelenting Faith - the third one to give them a bit of a defensive buff but without any aggressive/CB bonuses.

I had initially considered Pastoral Isolation as it ticks a few of the boxes I had in mind, but because Arianism seems to have been a fairly syncretic faith and was viewed as a dangerous heresy by mainstream Christianity I didn't think the relations bonus there fit, so I went with Adaptive instead. This gives some bonuses which reflect syncretic tendencies without going overboard - there are specific syncretic tenets but I didn't think any of them were a particularly good fit for Arianism aside from the Christian one, but that can't be given to Christian faiths (which is understandable). Another advantage to Adaptive is that it requires the pluralist doctrine, which I had wanted to give them anyway.

I take your point about a temporal head of faith, though it's an issue I was unsure about. For now I have no head of faith assigned, but I can see the arguments for a temporal head and I don't have an issue with opting for that.

There's a link here if you wish to see the rest.

 

[Rubidium]

I'd agree that no head of faith makes more sense than temporal head of faith. A temporal head of faith represents a ruler like the Caliph as nominal head over all the faithful; Arianism certainly never had that (the Vandals never paid attention to rulings from the Goths and vice versa). It started as merely a branch within the broader Roman Christian sphere, which largely failed to flourish within the Roman empire but had some success due to missionary efforts among barbarian peoples; in terms of actual practices it was fairly similar to most other "mainstream" Christian faiths. There were Arian bishops, priests, etc., just like any Catholic or Orthodox church.

I'd probably recommend Monasticism as a tenet in place of Adaptive. Adaptive is designed to make them hard to convert away from, but in reality most Arian nations were either conquered or voluntarily converted before CK2's time period, and they never had much hold over the local populace (as opposed to the Gothic/Vandal elite). It would also represent the similarity with other mainstream faiths, as it would be held in common by all three. As it stands, you have Arians having a completely different set of tenets than Catholic/Orthodox, which doesn't really represent the very small differences between them and the others in practical matters.

The main difference between Arians and Nicaean Christians (such as Catholics/Orthodox/Monophysites/etc.) is that for Arians, instead of being co-equal with the Father, the Son was the first-creation of the Father, and thus of similar substance but slightly inferior. While that is an important theological distinction, it had minimal impact on worship or practice unless you were a theologian.

 

[Gurkhal]

Yes, temporal head might have been an uninformed advice, in which case it might be best with no head of the faith. But I am a bit sceptical about monosticism as I don't recall there being any famous Arian monastries or that it was a big thing among them.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Yes, temporal head might have been an uninformed advice, in which case it might be best with no head of the faith. But I am a bit sceptical about monosticism as I don't recall there being any famous Arian monastries or that it was a big thing among them.

I agree with this - I've read a couple of different things about it not being a monastic faith, and Professor McCulloch linked to in the video above explicitly echoes this point. In addition, the Vandals were anti-monastic and destroyed the Nicene monasteries in their lands.

This is why I was very hesitant to have Monasticism as a tenet, as it was one of the few I immediately ruled out.

That said, I understand that it seems odd having no shared tenet with Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but nothing really stuck out to me; Arians apparently weren't monastic and I don't see many arguments for them having a communion/excommunications or a pentarchy. One advantage would be that it does make Arianism stick out and feel more unique.

I chose the three tenets for these reasons:

- Adaptive because it seems that Arianism was fairly syncretic (at least in certain areas) and this felt like a good way of representing that. None of the specific syncretic tenets seemed particularly justified; ironically the Christian one would have been interesting, but it can't be used by Christian faiths. I originally had Pastoral Isolation in this slot (which requires no head of faith) but Adaptive - though similar - felt a better fit, and also has the advantage of not having a general relations boost with other Christian faiths. This is important because e.g. Insular Christianity was not considered a heresy, whereas Arianism was and so the distinction is important. Adaptive also requires the Pluralist doctrine, which I have given them.

- Communal Identity because Arianism tended to be associated with the ruling classes that adopted it and it strengthens relations and conversion chances within Arian realms.

- Unrelenting Faith because it gives members of the faith a (primarily defensive) combat advantage and allows the lay clergy to serve as commanders. I admit that I have no idea whether the latter has any basis in fact (these are relatively obscure details for something so long ago) but because I've given them lay clergy and temporal faith appointments it seemed like a reasonable gameplay mechanic that most other Christian faiths don't have.

@Rubidium