In short, yes.

Remember, "Arian" is two sorts of label used to describe a number of groups in the fourth century. Firstly, it's a label used by Athanasius from the 360s onwards to describe a number of groups that he opposes, and to attempt to taint them through guilt by association with Arius, who had already been condemned. "Arians" by this measure did not consider themselves "Arian".

Secondly, it's a label used by later historians to name a number of these same groupings, but it's largely falling out of disfavour in recent years since it is problematic.

That said, groups that we call "Arian", considered themselves to be "orthodox" (though they did not necessarily use that word in the way that we do), and when they held sway they would bring ecclesiastical power to bear on 'orthodox' believers.

I'll give some links to translated creedal documents to illustrate. At the Council of Antioch in 341, mostly composed of non-Nicenes, they swore til they were blue in the face that they were not disciples of Arius. (First Creed). They also describe their faith as in conformity to the "evangelical and apostolic tradition", which is the kind of language marker we mean by "orthodox" (Second Creed).

Sirmium 357 very explicitly speaks against using the language of 'essence' to talk about the Father and Son, and is aimed squarely at rendering the Nicene creed and its adherents as unorthodox.

Coupled with these credal statements, councils dominated by non-Nicenes would regularly depose bishops of other theological persuasions, exiling them or otherwise punishing them. This explains, for instance, why Athanasius is continually deposed from Alexandria and goes into exile so often. His case is not isolated.

Remember, 'heresy' is, from a historical perspective, a post-factum description of the losing side. 'Heretics' didn't think they were heretical, but that they were right and the other guys were wrong.