ories of later classical mechanics [...] (Maier 1982 [1960], 146). As we can see, Maier accuses Duhem of not paying attention to the context investigated, that is, of not following his own recommendations. Now, it is interesting to note that the discussion he makes, according to her, remained controversial. This corroborates the view that Duhem, instead of worrying about dates and chronologies, posed other types of problems for historians of science. Maier (1982 [1960], 77) discusses, for example, the approach of the theory of impetus as an "anticipation of the system of mechanics based on the law of inertia". Discussed by Duhem, "who first drew attention to the scholastic theory [...] the problem has been discussed repeatedly". 24 I discuss the differences between Duhem and Leonardo's other interpreters in another work. See Oliveira (2016). 25 The title of his work – Die Vorläufer Galileis – already establishes the bond with the Duhemian Études. 26 David Lindberg (2007, 358-359) considers that Duhem's followers, such as Anneliese Maier, Marshall Clagett, and Lynn Thorndike, drew a more careful history of science. See also Brenner (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 135 Herbert Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27), who also writes about the importance of the theory of impetus, asserts: "the work of Duhem in the field that we have been considering has been an important factor in the great change which has taken place in the attitude of historians of science to the middle ages". 27 Another example of a "follower" of Duhem is Hélène Metzger. In spite of her work being focused on the history of chemistry, a field in which Duhem wrote very little, her writings suggest interesting parallels between them. By considering that her work distances itself from others dedicated to the history of chemistry, Metzger (1969 [1923]), provides a series of distinctive features between her work and other historians', explaining to 