Were Aristotelian mechanics "true" before they were usurped by Newtonian mechanics?

True in two perspectives:  true as closest false approximation to a better truth (similar to Heraclitus' principle of change ~ = modern physics' Energy flux, without much intimation of geometrization of energy), and true as accurately describing some energy processes ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 ).

"Usurp" is perhaps an incorrect word choice here, as it comes directly from OF usurper, "to wrongfully appropriate;" OF usurper carries the direct energy dynamic of its Latin root meanings of usus, "a use," and rapere, "to seize."  In humorous proverbial English, such rapid misuse is given as "bounding over one's steps," from "stepping over one's bounds," aka "getting out over one's skis," etc.; its polarity is "a watched pot never boils," "enough, already," "For All Practical Purposes," etc.

"Celestial Mechanics" by Richard Garfinkle...a novel in which the physics of this world are based in Aristotelian physics and Taoist alchemy.

"true," in that it was useful in times gone by. In this space travel age it is no longer useable.l.